planetf1.com

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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/

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. .

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

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)?

Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?

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.

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?

Hasn't Fontana himself confirmed it?

Yes, he has.

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

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?

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)?

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?

Wasn´t it in Monaco a few years back when Hamilton raised a big fuss about the STR drivers helping Vettel?

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?

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...

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?

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!