planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 1:49 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5173
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23220
minchy wrote:
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

I think the counter to that though would be that people betting should know that this has the potential to happen, specifically because it's not illegal (unlike match fixing in other sports). So the bookie wouldn't be liable because no rules have been broken. From a legal perspective it's not the bookies' responsibility to ensure the gambler is aware of the sporting regulations before they make a bet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5173
To be honest, I don't know if there is a rule which specifically stops inter-team orders similar to the badly worded tram order rule which got abolished back in 2011(ish), but I'd assume if there isn't, there probably should be, otherwise it really will just be an engine manufacturers championship.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23220
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
jl267 wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
The sad part is that this is now common practice. When a team depends on another team or manufacturer, a quiet whisper between team principles happens. It wasn't just Ocon and Mercedes, it was also McLaren and Renault/Red Bull. In the latter stages a McLaren miraculously came out of the pits and split Ricciardo and Vettel. McLaren have a Renault engine, just like the Red Bull. Dooh.

Personally I have always opposed team orders, and I hope others understand the cancer this is to the sport.


I'm not sure why Mclaren would do this? Sure, they share engines but it's a pretty big and random ask of Renault to say "Hey, can you spoil the race of your only remaining car to make sure that our other customer can win, even though it doesn't look like he needs assistance?". If anything it's embarrasing that Red Bull are winning races whilst Mclaren basically only have points because of Alonso's amazing feats. This is all coming from a Mclaren fan btw!

My first thought was that they were doing the old school "our car was right behind the winners car" for the end of race photo. I'm sure they used to do that at races like Le Mans? Or maybe they knew the race was over and wanted to run the hypers again.


McLaren did not lose position or spoil their results by placing their car between Ricciardo and Vettel. Additionally, Ricciardo definitely was struggling and a helping hand may have made a difference. Did you watch the race? Were you aware that early in the race (lap 17) Ricciardo's MGU-k died an ugly death and he was down 160 HP? Are you aware that the tech nuts are still going over what happened, because Ricciardo and his team had to work miracles to bring home the win? To state "it doesn't look like he needs assistance" is just plain untrue.
to be fair, though, by that stage it didn't look like he needed assistance anymore. He was doing a good job with a compromised car, but the nature of the circuit meant he was unlikely to lose position unless the car got significantly worse. He'd already demonstrated that he had it in hand.

I also find it doubtful that Renault would even try to intervene with McLaren on behalf of Red Bull, or that McLaren would accommodate such a request. But more to the point, I don't think Vandoorne actually held Vettel up at all. He appeared to be caught napping at the restart and lost several seconds. I remember wondering whether he had had some sort of issue because he should have been all over Vandoorne's gearbox but instead wasn't even in the same camera shot. Vandoorne was keeping up with Ricciardo quite comfortably and wasn't even in a situation where blue flags would have been appropriate. This is very different to Ocon jumping out of Hamilton's way like a scalded cat, when he should have been fighting for position


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Blake wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


TBF i said it was a difference not hugely different. I don't really see what the FIA can do TBH.


How about change the livery rules so that each car must carry different sponsorship than the other car? That way, the people that sponsor the teams would make sure that any collusion stops at the front door. If I sponsored a team for 100 million a year, I would not allow anyone an easy pass.

Personally I desire to see 20 cars battling each other for the entire race. And I mean intense, give-no-quarters, fight-to-the-last-breath stuff.

This is a suggestion that I have made for years in here, Blinky. That might work for inner team orders, but I don't see that it would have stopped the blatant Mercedes/Force India collusion to affect a race.


Ah, but this is different again. In the TR/RB we have drivers that may not have been instructed (key word MAY before someone jumps in!) but he may have done it himself to get some brownie points with the bosses. Would that be acceptable? I am not sure, brown nosing is not strictly illegal, but really bad taste (oh, I see what I just wrote, but I'll leave it!!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13765
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Fontana gave an interview when MSC was retiring, where he claimed this Todt instruction. Everyone has denied it, as you'd expect. He sounded extremely bitter that "Ferrari never thanked" him for holding JV back for 3 corners and was the only driver that had negative comments to say about Sauber when Peter Sauber sold the team to BMW.

I chose to believe Sauber's story, not because I am a Ferrari and MS fan. But Sauber has never been accused of being a dishonest man, he is one of the most respected men on the paddock and if he says that he never received an order from Ferrari in the 9 years they worked together, then I can believe him. Add to the fact that Herbert never came out with these accusations (again he was supposed to be there when the whole thing happened), nor anyone else, and it makes it sound like sour grapes that the Argentinian driver never got a thank you note from Ferrari nor a help in his later career.

I also suspect that Brundle's comments during the race didn't help either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
Siao7 wrote:
What do you mean Ferrari having Haas? What are they having, can you elaborate? I don't remember Haas jumping out of the way of Ferrari (it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, just that I don't remember it).

The RB-TR position is unique. They have the same parent company, but they are different entities nowadays. They don't even share the same engines to give each other data anymore. They used to in the early years, then they separated completely. The biggest thing is the driver situation, but this is again dictated by RBR and not RB. This means that the two teams are separate, but the drivers are all contracted as Red Bull Racing drivers. Because of that they can swap around drivers between the teams, they are not the "sister" teams that they used to be.

In terms of racing of course we can expect them to do something like that, it is not nice but if the drivers want to please their bosses, then so be it. For me orders are orders, even if it is in the same team. They can be used in good effect, say when the two drivers are on different strategies or when for example Hamilton recently asked if he could have a crack at overtaking the other car and if not then he would give his place back (can't remember which race though). But when they are manipulated then it just leaves a bad taste.

I don't remember before a team not being affiliated with another but paying their driver directly. It is a bit absurd. They are not under the same ownership, just straight paid from the competitor.

As far as I know Haas has never let a Ferrari past before, but I never claimed they had done.

However, Haas and Sauber have close Ferrari connections beyond being an engine supplier, Haas through its technical partnership and Sauber through the Alfa Romeo sponsorship. Mercedes have Force India under their wing, and these arrangements are a response to Red Bull's success with the Toro Rosso junior team set up.

Whether there is or is not collusion between them, ultimately all of these teams are going to know which side their bread is buttered - they are not involved in the Division A fight between Merc / Ferrari and Red Bull. Force India is a little different to the others in that they are very much bridging the gap, the Division B* / A- alongside Renault, so unlike Haas / Sauber / Toro Rosso, are often closer to front runners so this situation is more likely to arise.

The whole issue of Red Bull and Toro Rosso being part of the Red Bull company is totally irrelevant. From the rules of the sport they are separate teams. Just because they are owned by the same person is irrelevant, what that did was condition us for years to accept that they would just yield to the parent team because of the joint ownership. I've never liked it, and I don't like it if Mercedes are ordering Force India to let their drivers by either. However, it's no different to the Toro Rosso / Red Bull arrangement from a sporting or legal point of view. Just because the Red Bull drivers and Toro Rosso drivers have the same top boss makes no different to the impact on the sport - both the Red Bull / Toro Rosso situation and the Mercedes / Force India situation means that one team controls four cars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
What do you mean Ferrari having Haas? What are they having, can you elaborate? I don't remember Haas jumping out of the way of Ferrari (it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, just that I don't remember it).

The RB-TR position is unique. They have the same parent company, but they are different entities nowadays. They don't even share the same engines to give each other data anymore. They used to in the early years, then they separated completely. The biggest thing is the driver situation, but this is again dictated by RBR and not RB. This means that the two teams are separate, but the drivers are all contracted as Red Bull Racing drivers. Because of that they can swap around drivers between the teams, they are not the "sister" teams that they used to be.

In terms of racing of course we can expect them to do something like that, it is not nice but if the drivers want to please their bosses, then so be it. For me orders are orders, even if it is in the same team. They can be used in good effect, say when the two drivers are on different strategies or when for example Hamilton recently asked if he could have a crack at overtaking the other car and if not then he would give his place back (can't remember which race though). But when they are manipulated then it just leaves a bad taste.

I don't remember before a team not being affiliated with another but paying their driver directly. It is a bit absurd. They are not under the same ownership, just straight paid from the competitor.

As far as I know Haas has never let a Ferrari past before, but I never claimed they had done.

However, Haas and Sauber have close Ferrari connections beyond being an engine supplier, Haas through its technical partnership and Sauber through the Alfa Romeo sponsorship. Mercedes have Force India under their wing, and these arrangements are a response to Red Bull's success with the Toro Rosso junior team set up.

Whether there is or is not collusion between them, ultimately all of these teams are going to know which side their bread is buttered - they are not involved in the Division A fight between Merc / Ferrari and Red Bull. Force India is a little different to the others in that they are very much bridging the gap, the Division B* / A- alongside Renault, so unlike Haas / Sauber / Toro Rosso, are often closer to front runners so this situation is more likely to arise.

The whole issue of Red Bull and Toro Rosso being part of the Red Bull company is totally irrelevant. From the rules of the sport they are separate teams. Just because they are owned by the same person is irrelevant, what that did was condition us for years to accept that they would just yield to the parent team because of the joint ownership. I've never liked it, and I don't like it if Mercedes are ordering Force India to let their drivers by either. However, it's no different to the Toro Rosso / Red Bull arrangement from a sporting or legal point of view. Just because the Red Bull drivers and Toro Rosso drivers have the same top boss makes no different to the impact on the sport - both the Red Bull / Toro Rosso situation and the Mercedes / Force India situation means that one team controls four cars.

For the bold bit Alien, I never accused you of that. I just asked you to elaborate.

Otherwise a fair assessment, one that I agree. The RB/TR situation has probably made us more acceptable to the whole thing (well, you know what I mean), but I doubt many people would agree that it is a nice thing. I would agree with it if it is a driver decision not to mess with the title fight; however good luck proving that one...

I am only sceptical with the very last bit. I don't think Mercedes "controls" the FI team, they just ordered one driver that is directly paid by them. We do not know if the other driver has the same instructions. In essence if it is a team instruction or a specific driver (under a contract with Merc) one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13765
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Fontana gave an interview when MSC was retiring, where he claimed this Todt instruction. Everyone has denied it, as you'd expect. He sounded extremely bitter that "Ferrari never thanked" him for holding JV back for 3 corners and was the only driver that had negative comments to say about Sauber when Peter Sauber sold the team to BMW.

I chose to believe Sauber's story, not because I am a Ferrari and MS fan. But Sauber has never been accused of being a dishonest man, he is one of the most respected men on the paddock and if he says that he never received an order from Ferrari in the 9 years they worked together, then I can believe him. Add to the fact that Herbert never came out with these accusations (again he was supposed to be there when the whole thing happened), nor anyone else, and it makes it sound like sour grapes that the Argentinian driver never got a thank you note from Ferrari nor a help in his later career.

I also suspect that Brundle's comments during the race didn't help either.


Doesn't Fontana's account tie in with what we saw on track though? We did see him blocking Williams and jumping out the way for Ferrari.

It's worth saying of course that this was before the current over the top blue flags rules and it wasn't uncommon for back markers to weight to let leaders pass. Not like today where they're expected to allow cars passed that are over a second behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Fontana gave an interview when MSC was retiring, where he claimed this Todt instruction. Everyone has denied it, as you'd expect. He sounded extremely bitter that "Ferrari never thanked" him for holding JV back for 3 corners and was the only driver that had negative comments to say about Sauber when Peter Sauber sold the team to BMW.

I chose to believe Sauber's story, not because I am a Ferrari and MS fan. But Sauber has never been accused of being a dishonest man, he is one of the most respected men on the paddock and if he says that he never received an order from Ferrari in the 9 years they worked together, then I can believe him. Add to the fact that Herbert never came out with these accusations (again he was supposed to be there when the whole thing happened), nor anyone else, and it makes it sound like sour grapes that the Argentinian driver never got a thank you note from Ferrari nor a help in his later career.

I also suspect that Brundle's comments during the race didn't help either.


Doesn't Fontana's account tie in with what we saw on track though? We did see him blocking Williams and jumping out the way for Ferrari.

It's worth saying of course that this was before the current over the top blue flags rules and it wasn't uncommon for back markers to weight to let leaders pass. Not like today where they're expected to allow cars passed that are over a second behind.


Oh he definitely did all that, MSC ended with a 3 sec lead (from 1 sec or something). But not sure if it was a team order or Fontana trying to score some brownies.

It is down to him to provide proof really, isn't it? If he is accusing someone. He has gone out and accused MSC and Todt for not thanking him (talk about sour grapes) personally and also accused JV of blocking his move to another team.

It all makes a good story, but anyone can come out and claim things. That race saw the collusion of Macca and Williams and possibly Ferrari and Sauber, however in light of the disgraceful behaviour from MSC that day it was all swept under the carpet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
In the same race Verstappen got a free pass on Hartley but this seems to be alright, like I say double standards.


To whom?

Does this mean you agree FI should have not let Hamilton and Bottas pass?

If that's a rule then yes but it's not a rule as we have seen in the past and earlier in the race.


So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?

My position is that you can't be half pregnant, how can you stop collusion when someone owns more than one team?

https://www.pitpass.com/45446/Alguersua ... -Marko-row

Read the comments about Buemi and Alguesuari

https://www.racefans.net/2010/11/08/alg ... int-again/

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.

So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13765
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.

So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


Yes that's a perfect summation of my post. Very clearly exactly what I meant. :uhoh: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
minchy wrote:
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

Who cares about gamblers and why would they be gambling on theoretical situations?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.

So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


Yes that's a perfect summation of my post. Very clearly exactly what I meant. :uhoh: :lol:

I see what I see when you said you should expect a certain amount of collusion when someone owns 2 teams but it shouldn't happen when teams have different owners. .

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 207
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?

My position is that you can't be half pregnant, how can you stop collusion when someone owns more than one team?

https://www.pitpass.com/45446/Alguersua ... -Marko-row

Read the comments about Buemi and Alguesuari

https://www.racefans.net/2010/11/08/alg ... int-again/


Irrelevant - I never said Toro Rosso/RBR weren't doing it, and comments on an article are speculative (and again, irrelevant).

So your position is that you're fine with team-orders, whether within the team or between multiple teams (because it isn't possible to stop it)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13765
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.

So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


Yes that's a perfect summation of my post. Very clearly exactly what I meant. :uhoh: :lol:

I see what I see when you said you should expect a certain amount of collusion when someone owns 2 teams but it shouldn't happen when teams have different owners. .


I was explaining why it wasn't news in the same way this is. Not saying it's ok for one and not the other. Although I do believe it's different degrees. We accept STR exist for Red Bull.

"In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case."

I also said this in the post you quoted. I guess you'd stopped reading by then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9240
Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5173
pokerman wrote:
minchy wrote:
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

Who cares about gamblers and why would they be gambling on theoretical situations?

Ok Poker, let's forget about the gamblers. As I said, I don't gamble myself and I also couldn't care less about them. But let's first look at potential ramifications in f1 because of this - there is big prize money involved in f1and what if Mercedes beat Ferrari to the top spot by 1 point? Could Ferrari bring up this incident and protest because a Force India let a Mercedes by and by doing so cost Ferrari millions? There's no question that he did let the Mercedes by rather than simply not defending, so is that fair to Ferrari?

As for Ocon letting a driver by, I don't know of you follow cricket or read about the culmination of undercover investigations into the sport about 10 years ago? If not, here's a quick summary.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakista ... ng_scandal
If the FIA or local authorities look into f1 in the same way, it could be considered lucky for Ocon that his team and Mercedes have admitted to pre-planning the move should the situation arise.

My final point still stands if this is an acceptable thing to happen in f1, it will no longer be a sport, just sports entertainment. Which of it wants to be is fine, but if that is the case, they should simply embrace it and not hld onto being an actual sport. It's almost like Chelsea playing a non-league qualifyer in the first round of the FA cup, should they just sit down on the pitch and Chelsea score what they want or should they actually do their best to try and compete with them?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6289
Location: Nebraska, USA
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?

My position is that you can't be half pregnant, how can you stop collusion when someone owns more than one team?

https://www.pitpass.com/45446/Alguersua ... -Marko-row

Read the comments about Buemi and Alguesuari

https://www.racefans.net/2010/11/08/alg ... int-again/


Irrelevant - I never said Toro Rosso/RBR weren't doing it, and comments on an article are speculative (and again, irrelevant).

So your position is that you're fine with team-orders, whether within the team or between multiple teams (because it isn't possible to stop it)?


He sure hasn't indicated an acceptance of Ferrari inner team orders, such as Austria 2002 kind of things... But let it benefit Lewis and then it is acceptable. Kind of puts pokerman in a tough spot...
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6289
Location: Nebraska, USA
Covalent wrote:
Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?


One could suspect that the "high road" is crumbling.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6289
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


So now it behooves teams who are also engine manufactures to supply as many teams as possible AND have junior drivers strategically placed as well??? Then perhaps Ferrari and Mercedes should go with undercover junior drivers on each other's teams! Or... i wonder what it would cost Red Bull to "buy" Icon for example... F1 could become a reality TV suspense series! Throw in a little romance and sex and F1 would get the kind of ratings in the USA they have been seeking for decades!
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3108
minchy wrote:
pokerman wrote:
minchy wrote:
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

Who cares about gamblers and why would they be gambling on theoretical situations?

Ok Poker, let's forget about the gamblers. As I said, I don't gamble myself and I also couldn't care less about them. But let's first look at potential ramifications in f1 because of this - there is big prize money involved in f1and what if Mercedes beat Ferrari to the top spot by 1 point? Could Ferrari bring up this incident and protest because a Force India let a Mercedes by and by doing so cost Ferrari millions? There's no question that he did let the Mercedes by rather than simply not defending, so is that fair to Ferrari?

As for Ocon letting a driver by, I don't know of you follow cricket or read about the culmination of undercover investigations into the sport about 10 years ago? If not, here's a quick summary.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakista ... ng_scandal
If the FIA or local authorities look into f1 in the same way, it could be considered lucky for Ocon that his team and Mercedes have admitted to pre-planning the move should the situation arise.

My final point still stands if this is an acceptable thing to happen in f1, it will no longer be a sport, just sports entertainment. Which of it wants to be is fine, but if that is the case, they should simply embrace it and not hld onto being an actual sport. It's almost like Chelsea playing a non-league qualifyer in the first round of the FA cup, should they just sit down on the pitch and Chelsea score what they want or should they actually do their best to try and compete with them?

Match fixing is not about affecting a result, every action any party takes in a race affects the result. Match fixing is collusion between the people who place bets having an agreement with the sportspeople to make said move.

If some gamblers had made an agreement with Mercedes/Hamilton/Ocon that they would place a bet on Hamilton passing Ocon on lap 15 then that is the only way it could match fixing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1959
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Yes, he has.
:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.


So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Yes, he has.
:thumbup:


You mean the guy who comes with accusations confirmed it himself? Interesting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23220
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
So, in one case both teams have contracts to the same person (the owner) and thus they collude. In the other case, the teams collude with each other without having a contract to the same third person (the owner). A huge difference, really? I can either buy a competitor or make a cartel-like contract with him - the result is the same: collusion instead of competition. And IMO it is the result that counts.

Anyway, I find it disturbing that the FIA does not seem to be worried by any of this at all. Perhaps, because Jean Todt is said to be an early adopter of the collusion strategy (Fontana, Sauber)?
I fear it will get more if FIA does not make clear to intervene in the future. And yes, that includes clearing up the ownership structures at RBR/STR as well.


That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Yes, he has.
:thumbup:


You mean the guy who comes with accusations confirmed it himself? Interesting...

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13765
But he wasn't the guy with the accusations was he? Lots of people speculated on it. There were lots of accusers. Fontana's personal account is evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23220
mikeyg123 wrote:
But he wasn't the guy with the accusations was he? Lots of people speculated on it. There were lots of accusers. Fontana's personal account is evidence.

didn't the accusations stem from his account?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6274
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
But he wasn't the guy with the accusations was he? Lots of people speculated on it. There were lots of accusers. Fontana's personal account is evidence.

didn't the accusations stem from his account?


I'll be honest that I do not remember back then what was the hype. Probably the MSC shenanigans overshadowed everything, with the Macca/Williams agreement somewhere there. But it definitely came up with Fontana's accusations.

A bit like Jos's allegations really. Someone comes out saying something and we have to believe them because...? Jos's excuse was "I'm sure he was cheating, how could he be faster than me? I beat him in go karts"... Fontana's allegations are similar. He came out with these allegations when Schumacher was retiring, clearly to spite him as he didn't get a "thank you" for holding JV. He actually said this, that he was waiting Ferrari to thank him. I tend to believe Peter Sauber, he had nothing to lose at that time (he had sold the team) and he is a straight shooter. If he says it didn't happen, then I can believe that. In the end of the day it is an aggrieved employee's word against the rest...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?

My position is that you can't be half pregnant, how can you stop collusion when someone owns more than one team?

https://www.pitpass.com/45446/Alguersua ... -Marko-row

Read the comments about Buemi and Alguesuari

https://www.racefans.net/2010/11/08/alg ... int-again/


Irrelevant - I never said Toro Rosso/RBR weren't doing it, and comments on an article are speculative (and again, irrelevant).

So your position is that you're fine with team-orders, whether within the team or between multiple teams (because it isn't possible to stop it)?

Despite being aware of it have I ever made a big issue about it in the past, despite being aware of it why didn't you make a big issue of it in the past, I'm not accepting not being aware of it as an answer.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
It's hardly double standards. STR and Red Bull are owned by the same person. If you accept that you accept a certain amount of collusion between them.

What is different is a team who is merely a customer of another team in cahoots with them and not permitted to fight for themselves. Considering we only have four engine suppliers, one of which is in the back of a known junior team, that is a really disappointing situation to be in.

In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case.

So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


Yes that's a perfect summation of my post. Very clearly exactly what I meant. :uhoh: :lol:

I see what I see when you said you should expect a certain amount of collusion when someone owns 2 teams but it shouldn't happen when teams have different owners. .


I was explaining why it wasn't news in the same way this is. Not saying it's ok for one and not the other. Although I do believe it's different degrees. We accept STR exist for Red Bull.

"In my view it's totally anti sporting to have teams agreeing pre race deals of any kind. That includes STR and Red Bull. But with them it's not news because we know it's the case."

I also said this in the post you quoted. I guess you'd stopped reading by then?

I just can't get my head around the idea that it's become acceptable between Red Bull and STR and they have some kind of special circumstance that is not allowed elsewhere, at least the FIA seemed to be even handed in the matter.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Last edited by pokerman on Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
Covalent wrote:
Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?

Such a big fuss that I have no recollection so maybe it wasn't a big fuss but merely that he mentioned it, again that's just highlighting the fact that it's something that happens.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
minchy wrote:
pokerman wrote:
minchy wrote:
Something that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet is how this, or any other incident like it, will affect the bookies and gambling.

I don't gamble myself, but bookies take bets on f1 and if it is classed as a sport the odds and bets should reflect that. Look at match fixing in almost any other sport (soccer, American football, cricket etc) if any player is deemed to have done something deliberate to affect the outcome of the match (and also the odds) they have huge sentences imposed on them. Match bans or sometimes even live times bans, losing their jobs in a team, fines from the governing body, fines or even prison time from courts for fraud or similar.

What if someone in a bookies put an instant bet on how many laps Hamilton would be behind Occon? In a sporting situation this would be a genuine bet, but if Occon then let's Hamilton through can the gambler argue with the bookie that it was deliberate letting the other driver through? What if someone put a £1,000,000 bet on the Hamilton would pass Occon within 1 lap? Could that be seen as Occon in on the bet and was indeed 'match fixing'?

I guess my point is if this kind of thing is allowed in f1, then maybe it can no longer be called a sport as we know sport to be. It be a form of 'sports entertainment' like pro wrestling.

Who cares about gamblers and why would they be gambling on theoretical situations?

Ok Poker, let's forget about the gamblers. As I said, I don't gamble myself and I also couldn't care less about them. But let's first look at potential ramifications in f1 because of this - there is big prize money involved in f1and what if Mercedes beat Ferrari to the top spot by 1 point? Could Ferrari bring up this incident and protest because a Force India let a Mercedes by and by doing so cost Ferrari millions? There's no question that he did let the Mercedes by rather than simply not defending, so is that fair to Ferrari?

As for Ocon letting a driver by, I don't know of you follow cricket or read about the culmination of undercover investigations into the sport about 10 years ago? If not, here's a quick summary.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakista ... ng_scandal
If the FIA or local authorities look into f1 in the same way, it could be considered lucky for Ocon that his team and Mercedes have admitted to pre-planning the move should the situation arise.

My final point still stands if this is an acceptable thing to happen in f1, it will no longer be a sport, just sports entertainment. Which of it wants to be is fine, but if that is the case, they should simply embrace it and not hld onto being an actual sport. It's almost like Chelsea playing a non-league qualifyer in the first round of the FA cup, should they just sit down on the pitch and Chelsea score what they want or should they actually do their best to try and compete with them?

If you think it's such a big problem then the first thing to do is to ban ownership of more than one team.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
Blake wrote:
A.J. wrote:
pokerman wrote:
A.J. wrote:
So then you see no issues with either of the inter-team orders? What's your position?

My position is that you can't be half pregnant, how can you stop collusion when someone owns more than one team?

https://www.pitpass.com/45446/Alguersua ... -Marko-row

Read the comments about Buemi and Alguesuari

https://www.racefans.net/2010/11/08/alg ... int-again/


Irrelevant - I never said Toro Rosso/RBR weren't doing it, and comments on an article are speculative (and again, irrelevant).

So your position is that you're fine with team-orders, whether within the team or between multiple teams (because it isn't possible to stop it)?


He sure hasn't indicated an acceptance of Ferrari inner team orders, such as Austria 2002 kind of things... But let it benefit Lewis and then it is acceptable. Kind of puts pokerman in a tough spot...
:lol:

So you are now saying there is Ferrari inner team orders?

It's one thing highlighting a fact and another thing being against it.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
Blake wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?


One could suspect that the "high road" is crumbling.
;)

Again that just strengthens what I said, I'm guessing there wasn't such outrage on here back then?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23220
pokerman wrote:
Blake wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?


One could suspect that the "high road" is crumbling.
;)

Again that just strengthens what I said, I'm guessing there wasn't such outrage on here back then?

How does it strengthen what you said?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So it's alright for Red Bull and STR to do it because they have always done it and have the same owner but Mercedes shouldn't be able to do it with their junior driver who gets his wages paid by them.


So now it behooves teams who are also engine manufactures to supply as many teams as possible AND have junior drivers strategically placed as well??? Then perhaps Ferrari and Mercedes should go with undercover junior drivers on each other's teams! Or... i wonder what it would cost Red Bull to "buy" Icon for example... F1 could become a reality TV suspense series! Throw in a little romance and sex and F1 would get the kind of ratings in the USA they have been seeking for decades!
:lol:

Strange how it only becomes a problem when Mercedes/Hamilton get the benefit?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26915
Zoue wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
That was really unfounded though, wasn't it? Everyone has denied the incident, Peter Sauber, Ferrari, everyone. Johnny Herbert, a masseur and Peter Sauber were supposed to be in the motorhome when this happened. And ok, if Peter Sauber had an interested to keep his mouth shut to get the engines from Ferrari, we know that Herbert does not keep his god shut with these things. He's not a Schumacher fan either...


Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?


Yes, he has.
:thumbup:


You mean the guy who comes with accusations confirmed it himself? Interesting...

:thumbup:

So we have the need to defend something that happened so long ago that nobody really cares about it now, all so no defence can be made in the Hamilton/Ocon incident.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndyM77, Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Myopia and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group