Ferrari fire back with details in Alonso penalty row
Scuderia Ferrari
Ferrari fire back with details in Alonso penalty row
Posted By: James Allen  |  16 Jul 2010   |  4:11 pm GMT  |  173 comments

The row over Fernando Alonso’s penalty at Silverstone for overtaking Robert Kubica illegally and failing to give back the place has moved on a step.

Ferrari sporting director Massimo Rivola today released a minute by minute account of Ferrari’s actions during the period after the disputed overtake. He reveals that Ferrari was on the radio to FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting within 14 seconds of the incident.

Alonso: Seriously unhappy (Darren Heath)


Alonso passed Kubica for fourth place by cutting off the circuit. He did not give the place back straight away and soon after the Renault hit technical problems, slowed and then retired. Nine laps after the incident Alonso was hit with a drive through penalty, but then a safety car was deployed meaning that the field bunched up and Alonso went to the back of the field.

Whiting said earlier this week in the Italian magazine Autosprint, “We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica. We told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene.

“They didn’t do that, and on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position. It’s not true at all that the stewards took too long to decide. For us, the facts were clear immediately – Alonso had gained an advantage by cutting the track.”

However today in Gazzetta dello Sport, Rivola contests this view.
” We don’t want a polemic, but there are some things to be cleared up here because Ferrari made decisions with a certain logic. Rivola says that he was straight on to Whiting at 1-31pm after Alonso’s move, asking him to review the pass and saying that in Ferrari’s view there wasn’t room to pass Kubica on the track. Whiting asked for time to view the pictures of the pass.

At 1-33pm Ferrari called back, Alonso is now a lap and one sector further on and in pursuit of Rosberg, while Kubica is falling back. Whiting says that the stewards think that Alonso should give the place back. Rivola asks if that is a final decision. No, says Whiting but that’s how we see it. Meanhwile on track Kubica falls further back and Alonso passes Alguersuari.

At 1-33pm and 22 seconds Rival points out that Alonso now has Alguersuari between him and Kubica. While they are speaking Barrichello passes Kubica so there are now three places between Alonso and Kubica.

According to Rivola, Whiting says that he gave Ferrari the possibility of giving the place back and that as things are as they are the stewards will hear you after the race. 30 seconds later Kubica retires.

At 1-45pm the stewards investigation begins and at 1-46, just 55 seconds later, the stewards decide that Alonso should get a drive through penalty.

Ferrari are very angry that for two races in a row the stewards have not acted fairly, in their view. In Valencia Lewis Hamilton overtook the safety car but the punishment was so late in coming that it didn’t penalise him at all, meanwhile Ferrari lost a lot of ground by doing the right thing.

Ferrari’s website this week carried a story focussing on newspaper articles in Italy and Spain, which criticise the FIA stewards and race director for the amount of time key decisions are taking this season, describing it as “Formula Lullaby”. There is also the suggestion that whether and when punishments are handed out depends on who it is that is being punished. And that Ferrari is being singled out for some special treatment.

Meanwhile team principal Stefano Domenicali has said that despite the big loss of points in the last two races which would have kept them in contention, the world championship is still winable.
“Anyone who does not believe that we can win the world championship would do better looking for another job,” he told his team. “No one here is giving up: there are still nine races to go and anything can happen. We will have to do our job perfectly, that is to say the Ferrari way and then the results will come.”

Featured Video
Behind the Scenes at the track
Behind the Scenes at the track
Featured News in ferrari
MORE FROM Ferrari
LATEST FROM THE SCUDERIA FERRARI COMMUNITY
Previous
Next
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!
1

Dealing with such situation in Poland we say “Ferrari and Alonso pretended the Greeks” (don’t know English equivalent).

2

Alonso gained an advantage, and should have given it up straight away. End of story.

Last year at Singapore, Webber gained an advantage by going off the track to overtake a driver (Alonso?). When the message from the stewards came through, Webber was forced to concede two positions, as the driver had been overtaken by another car (Glock, I think).

As some of the blind McLaren/Hamilton devotees have felt the need to bring up Spa 2008, perhaps they should also comment on Monza 2007 where Hamilton overtook Massa by cutting a chicane on the first lap but escaped even an investigation. More proof that their claims of Ferrari favouritism/bias against Hamilton is pure twaddle.

3
Damian Johnson

I am not a blind McLaren/Hamilton devotee as you suggest but I can spot a FIA hatchet job when I see one. There was more to Spa 2008 than just chicane cutting as your comment suggests.

You would know that Hamilton at Spa 2008 unlike Alonso gave back the position and so to make the Hamilton penalty stick, the racing stewards applied a new law retrospectively. How often does that happen in F1? And was 25 seconds a fair penalty? Allan Donnelly, Max’s right hand man, also interviewed Hamilton after the race and acted as the go between for the racing stewards even though he was not listed as being a member on the stewards panel.

And with regards to Ferrari favouritism, which team received a secret technical veto from FIA and also receives a higher share of F1 revenues? I leave everyone else to draw their own conclusions on whether Ferrari has had more than its fare share of favourable FIA decisions.

4

The issue at Spa was whether Hamilton gave up the advantage that he obtained. If you have evidence that he did then please provide it.

The time penalty given was in lieu of a drive-through penalty, and was the corresponding penalty under the circumstances.

Your claim that a new law was introduced retrospectively is not true. A clarification was issued that drivers should not overtake again until the next corner.

Most F1 drivers at the time were of the view that Hamilton deserved the penalty.

Ferrari receives more money than the other teams because of its huge popularity – deal with it.

As for the secret veto, perhaps other teams would have been offered the right to veto had they signed the Concorde Agreement at the same time as Ferrari.

You conveniently ignored Monza 2007. There were a number of other questionable decisions that went Hamilton’s way that year as well which the blind McLaren/Hamilton devotees and Ferrari bashers conveniently ignore.

You claim not to be a blind McLaren/Hamilton devotee, but you appear to have an issue with Ferrari – get over it!

5
Robert Higginbotham

Here is the Alonso/Klien incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjAwFVR8po

Two or three laps later Alonso was required to let Klien past. I don’t recall a great deal of controversy surrounding this incident.

6

Damian Johnson

If you were to pay attention to the facts, then you would have noticed that I stated that Alonso should have given the position back straight away. If I were a blind Ferrari devotee, would I have done so?

The concept may be alien to you, but there are people who can follow F1 with an open mind.

You have again conveniently ignored Monza 2007. Why could that be?

As for your “evidence”, perhaps you need to review the situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FzNZSaKOsQ

It is true that Hamilton gave up his position to Raikkonen – I never denied that. However, he did not drop back to give up any time advantage that he obtained by cutting the chicane, but instead immediately proceeded to reclaim the position once Raikkonen was past.

How much of a time advantage did Hamilton obtain by cutting the chicane? Did he drop back by this amount of time? Drivers are required to surrender any time advantage that they obtain from going off the track. It would be easy for McLaren to produce a simulation to demonstrate Hamilton’s lap time had he not cut the chicane, and to compare this with what happened.

Do you have such evidence?

There is a precedent for the FIA giving penalties to drivers cutting a chicane and not giving up the time advantage that they obtained. It happened at Suzuka circa 2002. A number of drivers cut the chicane leading on to the pit straight. When Michael Schumacher did so, he slowed down in the first sector to give up the time advantage that he obtained, whilst others, such as Montoya, did not. Drivers falling in the latter category were given penalties.

Perhaps you see this as further proof of FIA bias towards Ferrari…

Alonso was involved in a similar incident to that at Silverstone at Suzuka in 2005, when he overtook Christian Klien by cutting the chicane, and he was required to give back his position a few laps later.

There are precedents for the penalty handed to Hamilton at Spa 2008, but despite the evidence there are undoubtedly some who will continue to ignore the facts and regurgitate their emotionally-driven twaddle.

Did the FIA “construct a rule” after Spa 2008 that said you cannot overtake until the next corner?

Your claim that Raikkonen’s car had “no grip” suggests that you are in disagreement with the fundamentals of physics. Perhaps you can elaborate on this matter! Or perhaps what you meant to say was that Raikkonen’s Ferrari had a lower level of grip than Hamilton’s McLaren. But the question remains, where would Hamilton have been relative to Raikkonen had he not cut the chicane?

Are you able to answer this question, or will you resort to the same twaddle?

Niki Lauda also drove for McLaren – it is interesting to note that you didn’t mention that! Did you agree with Niki whenever he came to the defence of Michael Schumacher, or is your support of Lauda’s comments highly selective?

Ex-McLaren driver Alex Wurz stated on ITV that he thought the penalty was deserved.

I never claimed that other teams had the secret veto, so once again you have, at best, misunderstood the facts. What I said was that other teams may have been given the right to a veto had they signed the Concorde Agreement at the same time as Ferrari. There was a time when any team had the right to veto a proposed rule change.

It is interesting to note that when Mansell drove for Ferrari and Senna drove for McLaren, the FIA was supposedly biased against ‘our Nige’ and supported Senna! Two decades later the same organisation was biased towards Ferrari and against a British driver at McLaren. Hmmm…

Some would undoubtedly conclude that you have let your emotions, and other issues, get in the way of the facts!

This event happened almost two years ago. It is time that you became au fait with reality and moved on! We shouldn’t be wasting our time on this issue!

7

Can we have less personal stuff here between posters. This post is borderline not allowable. Keep it polite

8

From your comments, one might conclude that you are a blind Ferrari devotee! The evidence clearly showed that Hamilton had dropped behind Kimi’s car. The problem with Kimi’s car was that he had no grip in the rain so slowed right down for the bend just after the hand back. That is your evidence!

As for determining what was “sufficient advantage”, is for the subjective interpretation by the stewards. There was nothing in the rule book with which to outlaw Hamilton’s hand back. That was at the heart of the debate and required FIA to construct a rule after Spa that said you cannot overtake until the next corner to legitimise the controversial decision made by the stewards.

As for your comment that most F1 drivers were accepting of the Spa decision. Well my response is that they would say that would n’t they as Lewis was leading the Championship and they need to get the points margint down. A far more credible view can be taken from ex F1 drivers and many were outspoken in criticising FIA, most notably Niki Lauda. As an ex Ferrari driver, even Niki said that he never believed that FIA was biased to Ferrari until the decision at Spa and said that he was starting to believe it.

Instead of making wild assertions, where is your evidence that other teams besides Ferrari also had the secret technical veto? It’s quite damning for a neutral sports body to be agreeing a technical veto with one of the competing teams. Using Max’s Mosely’s famous word, that’s “polluting” F1.

9

There’s no post race statement from Alonso regarding his cuttrack, because… he knew he’s guilty!

10

The FIA should fire Charlie Whiting for his incompetence.

I don’t watch F1 to see some toilet grade race director influence race results.

Too many times, Charlie has affected the race outcome through political sabotage or sheer incompetence.

I watch F1 to see teams and drivers fight it out.

A race director should be invisible, and simply state what needs to be done…

Why couldn’t he just tell Ferrai, the ovetake was questionable? Give the place back..

Nomally it’s McLaren that are the victims, but I guess Ferrai have now fallen foul of the corrupt official.

11
Damian Johnson

CW did not affect the race outcome. Alonso damaged his race by cutting a chicane and not handing back the position. As a result of what happened at Spa 2008 and specifically in relation to the race communications between McLaren and CW, Ferrari were 100% well aware that CW cannot give a definitive statement on the legality or otherwise.

12

TOTALLY AGREE! FIA on many occasions has been totally incompetent. What a shame. Beware of the light blue shirt men.

13

For 2 races running Ferrari have been negatively impacted upon by correct steward decisions.

That’s life.

Get on with it

14

correct but the APPLICATION of the punishment is what the issue here. Hamilton got an unfair advantage with the stewards dithering in the last race. Alonso did the same and he got punished straight away- 55 secs v the 16 or so minutes for Hamilton may smell of conspiracy, but it looks and is incompetence from the stewards.

15

No point whinning. They were told immediately to give back positions. It’s a mistake for Ferrari so live with it.

As indicated they can still fight for the championships, please show us how can you do it with dignity.

And this year’s stewarding has not been perfect as expected with assistance form ex racing drivers.

16

It depends on how you define ‘immediately’. And, they were not ‘told to’ as in ‘this is our decision’. They were told ‘its not our decision but maybe you should’. Very vage and by no means an ‘order’.

Aside from this, Whiting has done it before: tell the teams something and different things happen afterwards. Its not the first time he brings himself into trouble.

Unfortunately for Ferrari they seem to be on the top list for dubious decisions this season. And i don’t see that to change anytime soon, so they better learn to live with it.

17

There’s been different reports regarding Alonso’s penalty. So we get confused as to what the stewards said as the media is the only source for our comments.

18

I’m going to be honest here, the stewards have been just awful this season. Inconsistant penalties (especially compared to previous seasons)and this incident just tops it off.

What annoys the most is last season Webber was given a drive through penalty for an unsafe pit release in Germany, however that has gone completely unpunished this year.

19
Damian Johnson

Ferrari and their supporters need to grow up and stop blaming FIA, racing stewards or even Lewis Hamilton. A 5 year old would know that Alonso should have handed back the position to Kubica.

I also find Ferrari’s hypocracy staggering as they were so very vocal after Spa 2008 to defend the decision to give Hamilton a 25 second penalty so that their driver, Massa could snatch an undeserving win. Two years later Ferrari conveniently forget Spa 2008.

Why was Ferrari even allowed to send a lawyer to this hearing as this should have been a strict matter between McLaren and FIA. The bad old days of Ferrari International Assistance?

The Spa 2008 was a very bitter pill to swallow for McLaren/Hamilton fans so its a sweet moment to see Ferrari being forced to drink its own medicine!

20

It looks as though you need to both grow up and move on!

21

Got to love the comment about Alonso having passed Alguersuari. Alonso influencing Alguersuari’s race after overtaking by Kubica by unfair means actually supports the penalty and this guy tries to use it to support his case.

22

The whole story starts to smell bad….

If Gazetta’s story is true, which sounds very possible, what were the stewards aiming for? Benefiting Button maybe????

23

I’d be interested in how this impacts Charlie’s approach to future contact from Ferrari during a race.

Ferrari are being very short sighted here, I think. The next time Charlie is just going to stick to the rulebook and stiff-arm them if they come to him for guidance.

24

Ferrari were trying for a professional foul, and sadly it backfired.

How long will it before Ferrari start talking of leaving F1.. “toys out of pram”.

25

I don’t understand most of the comments over here.

Most of you seem not to read this part of the article:

According to Rivola, Whiting says that he gave Ferrari the possibility of giving the place back and that as things are as they are the stewards will hear you after the race. 30 seconds later Kubica retires.

They woud hear Ferrari AFTER the race, that been said you simply can’t give any penalty during the race for the action being made by Alonso.

However, thinking about it, Ferrari would have been wiser to give back position immediately.

26

Agreed, Fernando got an advantage cutting the chicane, but I think the penalty was a bit harsh from my opinion.

10 seconds could have been added to his overall time like they generally do for the infringements in the closing lap as the person who was overtaken retired anyway.

Its also surprising that Ferrari is going all out against the FIA though their ex team boss is at the helm of FIA. Can this then be perceived as renewed animosity between Alonso and Todt (when Alonso allegedly turned down a Ferrari offer in the past for McLaren)

27

alonso did what hamilton did the race before…he tried it on and waited for the consequences. Essentially he put the ball in the court of the stewards to make a decision. They did what they did and he got punished. He has been on the wrong side of two decisions. Conspiracy? hard to prove. It would all go away if the stewards made decisions FAST. Hamilton got so far ahead in his offence that the punishment did not fit the crime. Alonso had legitimate claims there. The structure is there ie: the rules, so it should all follow logically. the problem is that there is a BIG intagiable that is not so logical and that is the APPLICATION of those rules by the stewards which, as we have seen, can have a dramatic effect on outcomes. That is poor. can someone give us the headlines on the acrimony between jean todt and ferrari when he lEft. I am a little out of the loop there.

28

…you omit to mention one key point. Fragile Fred and Ferrari had it within their control to give the place back. They chose not to. Lewis, having passed the safety car by half a metre in a nano second had no such option. He could not penalise himself. Fred gambled and lost, Ferrari carry on whining as usual.

29

sporting Code, Chapter IV, anexe L:

2,b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left.

However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such more than one change of direction to defend a position, deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited.

Any driver who appears guilty of any of the above offences will be reported to the stewards of the meeting.

F1 sporting regulations:

16.1 “Incident” means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and referred to the race director for investigation) which :

– necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41 ;

– constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code ;

– caused a false start by one or more cars ;

– caused a collision ;

– forced a driver off the track ;

– illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver ;

– illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

Who breaches the rules?

Kubica, or Alonso?

In a near future, a driver will force a driver off the track… and we all must ask why FIA dont pelalised these actions before..

And what happens with Rosberg overtake?

http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/jad/rosberg.jpg

Charlie must be banned from F1.

It’s my opinion.

( Sorry if my english isn’t good)

30

AT least this seems to have pre-empted 3-Car-Monty’s usual rant about slower cars getting in the way.

31

Alonso has not been exceptional the last two races, but he has been on course for some solid points before the stewards have intervened with the race. He is simply going through a patch of bad luck. Like most things there is an ebb and flow and I’m sure Alonso will catch a lucky break sooner or later. He just has to keep focused and realise that a lapse in judgement will see him make mistakes for which there is no natural balancer.

32

No sure it’s that obvious mate. David Coulthard, an experienced racer who has never been a fan of Ferrari supported their case and thought they were hard done by during the commentary. Also, My main problem is that the radio traffic, I assume Ferrari can back it up, proves that Charlie Whiting is a liar. That’s a real concern

33

I was all ready to write a rant about Ferrari crying because they didn’t get their own way.

However I just watched the race edit on Formula1.com which shows the incident once at racing speed. On that it looks like Alonso was forced into cutting the corner by Kubica. So at first glance without replays if I was on the Ferrari pit wall I’d have asked for guidance. It looked like it was Kubica’s fault he lost a place.

Ferrari gambled it would get called that way, if it didn’t Alonso might be so far up the road the penalty wouldn’t hurt too much. Fair gamble. It probably explains why Fernando didn’t moan too much about it.

The risk taking and complaining shows how desperate Ferrari are for points this season, it wouldn’t surprise me if they had a target to hit or there’s big changes coming to the team management.

34

I still cannot understand Ferrari not giving the position back immediately, off their own initiative, never mind Whiting.

Ferrari are well aware of the full situation after the incident in Spa 2008, where they sent there own lawyer to ensure Massa kept first place.

Ask anyone in the paddock and they would all quote unanimously that the position had to be returned immediately. Many may well also see little point in returning the position once Kubica is no longer there, but that is another issue.

I cannot believe that Ferrari would do anything else than to advise to return the position immediately, unless the agenda was being driven from the cockpit.

35

First of all, it is Ferrari’s responsibility to know the rules and to ensure that they follow them. If they have a question about them, then it is up to them to contact the stewards.

It was blatantly obvious that Alonso gained a position by cutting the corner. Whether due to being pushed of by the other car or not, it is immaterial. He had to give it back and then resume the fight. That was clear and obvious.

The fact that Ferrari decided to wait and see if the stewards reacted to the event and then see if they were going to penalize Alonzo made the consequences of waiting their own fault. To blame the resulting drop through the field on the stewards’ long reaction time is just idiotic. Ferrari knew Alonso committed an infraction. They tried to get away with it. They got caught and required to pay a penalty. It was further bad luck that it happened just as the safety car came out.

Too bad. You screwed up. You take responsibility and accept the consequences.

36

This incident raises a number of issues.

We need to encourage racing and overtaking attempts. Many have referred to the Spa Kimi/Lewis incident. If I remember correctly there was a great deal of comment about the ruling limiting those drivers willing to have a go. And the penalising of Alonso is just as restrictive.

Also, Speeny’s comment above about the rule re crowding a driver to the edge is a good one. Webber did just the same to Vettel yet there wasn’t even a murmur about it. That said, I don’t think even Horner had the brass neck to put in an objection.

Whilst I would suggest we do not need overtakes at all costs, how much more sensible would it be if, rather than have afterburners fitted to the cars, we modified the rules to limit blocking and such.

We need moves like Alonso’s and Lewis’: that’s why I watch motor racing. I don’t like the idea of the overtaking driver being forced off the circuit and then being subject of a penalty.

On the penalty itself, from the timings it would appear that Whiting told Ferrari that Alonso should give back the place within two minutes, a bit over a lap, after the incident. Yet Ferrari did nothing about it. They took a risk, no problem with that in F1, but it didn’t pay off. No one to criticise but themselves.

On a small point, probably not strictly relevant, but at the Spa incident, McLaren contacted Whiting who said that Lewis, in allowing Kimi to repass, had negated the advantage.

Probably even less relevant, Ferrari were adamant that it was obvious that an advantage had been gained and that the fact that Kimi decided to go farming later was irrelevant. But then, would any team manager say different if it was their driver? But, whilst we can’t really criticise them, there is a rather delicious irony, especially if you are a McLaren fan.

I accept that Kubica was, by that time, in trouble but that was irrelevant. If Alonso had slowed immediately Whiting’s comments were relayed to him, ostensibly to negate the advantage, perhaps dropped behind a couple of cars, and then, when it appeared fruitless, speeded up, I feel sure that in the present stewarding climate the penalty would have been deemed to have been served.

One point on which I think Ferrari needs to take care: they have, with their driver, rather publically criticised the FIA over the safety car incident. I would assume that, given his comments since, Alonso has been warned regarding his future conduct. But after that, the Ferrari website carried considerable criticism and it did not aid the dignity of the sport.

Given the animosity between Todt and Ferrari when they parted company it is with some relief, and respect, that I note no immediate overreaction from the FIA president. Boy, have I been proved wrong about him.

But now Ferrari have featured press reports critical of the FIA’s decision, some bordering of the libellous, on their website. They might feel they have been hard done by but, like all sports, you can’t commit to a campaign against the organisers without expecting some form of retaliation.

Despite McLaren feeling very hard done by, Whitmarsh’s letter in response to the findings of the enquiry into Stepneygate, where they refuted most of the findings and criticised the penalty, was, on the face of it, respectful. I say Whitmarsh’s letter but it was, more probably, an army of lawyers who created it.

Having been subject of discipline myself I know full well that, once found guilty, it is a requirement to accept the findings and punishment. Please, Ferrari, take care. We don’t want you to lose points or to suffer some stupid additional penalty ’cause the FIA feels it has to exert its authority.

I can see the team’s point of view. I would see it a lot more clearly had they not chosen to ignore the advice from Whiting just two minutes after the incident.

I tell you what, though: this is a fascinating 2010. There’s enough happened so far to keep us talking all through the off season. And we’re just half way through.

37

Good post, but isn’t it true to say that, quite simply, Whiting has been exposed her to be a liar? He presented the scenario that he had been calling Ferrari to urge them to return the place, while in fact Ferrari have now proven conclusively that this was not the case at all…

I’m no Ferrari fan, and I can’t stand Alonso as a character, but I can clearly state two things – 1) that had Alonso not driven off the tarmac he would have been crashed into by Kubica, and 2) the sport needs Ferrari a lot more than they need the FIA, and the sport has been given a lot more by Ferrari than the FIA over the years. Todt, more than anyone else on Earth should recognise this, unless the sudden power of his presidency has gone to his head and obscured his normally excellent clarity of vision.

Ferrari do the things they need to do to the best of their ability – namely bringing fans, glamour and success to the sport, which is surely the chief aim of any team, and to push every possible angle they can to gain a competitive advantage.

The FIA do not do the things they need to do to the best of their ability, namely making the purest, fairest, most efficient and transparent decisions possible. They do not, and this was yet one more example in decades of tiresome, frustrating examples. They really are not, despite replacing Mosley with Todt, fit for purpose…

38

I find that F1 is becoming increasingly a British managed & run business, in which Anglo-Saxon logic and behaviour is becoming the norm. Somewhat putting to ridicule what I would now call “foreign” outfits, Ferrari unfortunately being one of them. And Ferrari also have that double edged knife called Todt at the FIA, who has made a point of being over zealous regarding his impartiality about Ferrari. So much so that the prancing horse is in a weaker position than the other teams. There is a solution I think – unfortunately. Put in an Anglo-Saxon boss and Ferrari will become a more politically correct team in the eyes of today’s F1 managers and decision takers.

39

Ferrari have been alienating their fans over the past two seasons with their constant accusations of unfair treatment. Get your act together and do what you do best – winning.

That said, if Whiting had told Ferrari within seconds instead of a few minutes of the incident to let Kubica repass, they’d still cry out with calls of an unfair decision and would’ve said that Kubica should have been penalized instead.

40

It’s not Charlie’s call!

41

Whiting gave a personal opinion, not an instruction. Ferrari asked if that was his final decision and Whiting asked for some time to review footage. When overtaking in modern F1 is close to impossible, Ferrari were right to expect clear instructions, not a vague opinion.

Top Tags
SEARCH Scuderia Ferrari