Did Ferrari cheat in Korea?

[Dave B]

This is the internet equivalent of chucking a lit firework into a crowded room, but here goes.

This from grandprix.com (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22731.html) :



A report by the British Autosport magazine's respected journalist Mark Hughes has revealed that Ferrari once again applied team orders during the Korean Grand Prix to further the championship cause of Fernando Alonso.

In his report of the race Hughes points out that when Alonso lost time at his pit-stop due to problems with a wheel nut, Ferrari "was quick-thinking enough to use Massa to back up the queue out on track - preventing more cars than just Hamilton taking advantage. This cost Massa a place..."

The full story makes... interesting... reading:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22731.html

For what it's worth I think Hughes is reading a bit too much into things, but over to you for your thoughts!

[Big Ben]

they should be banned for the eternity. What did they do?

[schmenke]

The "no team orders" rule has got to go.

[Hondo]

You'd have to prove it. The team orders rule is so loosely written that it could applied to many things, including pit stop order and "errors" made during the pit stop. I could understand a penalty if, with 3 laps or less to go, the team orders the drivers to trade places. That definitely changes the outcome of the race and satisfies the rule.When Alonso came out of the paddock Sunday, the race was still up for grabs.

No penalty.

[pino]

Yes Ferrari did cheat...but that's not a news anymore :rolleyes:

[Tazio]

That only happens about 10 times a season, by any and all teams :dozey:
Totally a non lssue :down:

[Sonic]

The "no team orders" rule has got to go.

Agreed. :up:

[mike.flynn]

Agreed. :up:

Agreed to! :)

[UltimateDanGTR]

That only happens about 10 times a season, by any and all teams :dozey:
Totally a non lssue :down:

yup couldnt agree more.

disqualify all teams! :D

[Hawkmoon]

We have Christian Horner and Martin Whitmarsh openly talking about team orders and this character is worried about possible team orders by Ferrari? Quality journalist this one. :rolleyes:

[N4D13]

Well, maybe -just maybe- Ferrari told Massa to hold people behind him. So what if they did?

[Firstgear]

Poor Filipe!

A while back he was told to slow down because Alonso was faster than him. Now he's being told to slow down becasue Alonso is slower than him.

No wonder he's doing so poorly in the standings.....no matter what the situation, Ferrari are instructing him to slow down. :p

[inimitablestoo]

Either way, it's that end of the season where one driver can win the title and one can't, so no one cares any more.

[steveaki13]

Poor Filipe!

A while back he was told to slow down because Alonso was faster than him. Now he's being told to slow down becasue Alonso is slower than him.

No wonder he's doing so poorly in the standings.....no matter what the situation, Ferrari are instructing him to slow down. :p


:laugh: :laugh: :up:

[Duchess]

No. Is there even a point in bringing this up?

[Koz]

*yawn*

[wattoroos]

ever since germany, people are picking out the littlest details and calling it team orders, it is the stupidest rule, it is impossible to police

[Tazio]

No. Is there even a point in bringing this up?

Why yes there is! It just happens to be a really stupid irrelevant one. :dozey:

[F1boat]

I think that grandprix.com is so blatantly pro-McLaren, that it is not even funny.

[Tazio]

Or could they be pro Red Bull do you think? What makes you think its pro Mclaren?
I'm a regular reader of grandprix.com and they were less than flattering to Mclaren during 2007, and the early part 2009. It rather depends on who is writing the article.

Does it matter? Mark Hughes wrote something that may well be true. The thing is he is appealing to a segment of the F1 fan base that doesn't get how insulting this is to people that actually follow F1 very closely and realize that this is more akin to being clever than cheating.

[555-04Q2]

What is it with people and the use of "cheat" / "cheating" words :?: :confused:

Pick up a dictionary and find another word to use, its getting a little old how there are so many people here in glass houses throwing stones :crazy:

[Dave B]

Hughes is sticking to his guns, although picking his words very carefully. He's also getting a little defensive and assuring readers that his source is impeccable.

http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/3151

I'm merely the messenger...

[Big Ben]

I don't know who he is and I never read who wrote the article... maybe I should... I could avoid reading this bs if you say he is so consistent

[mike.flynn]

even if ferrari did, it worked!

[wedge]

Just what did Massa do exactly which was wrong?

I remember some years ago Fisi was penalised for 'stacking' the field onto pit road so as to benefit Alonso.

[Tazio]

Do the rules say that you have to race to the safety care?
I think proceeing at a safe pace is permitted!
What's the beef? :dozey:

BTW Idn't see any other pulications running with this story.
(Although there is may be some)

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Hughes is not to blame, grandprix.com is for its biased, predictably anti-Ferrari spin. Hughes clearly states: "Our position on team orders is that it is a natural part of racing anyway and even the FIA has accepted that in the midst of a championship showdown, they are inevitable. Far from attacking Ferrari, we fully support its actions in doing what it did in South Korea."

[mike.flynn]

Hughes is sticking to his guns, although picking his words very carefully. He's also getting a little defensive and assuring readers that his source is impeccable.

http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/3151

I'm merely the messenger...

Impeccable source, thats crap, he's just spreading rubbish so he gets more attention on his articles!

[Tazio]

You know different do you? From what I can tell, the article has been spun with an additional headline on a secondary site.

Hughes might not always write in a totally impartial manner, but he does have primary access to F1 teams, has been writing about F1 for many years, and as far as I know does not write inflammatory articles that are likely to get him sued. :dozey:

I like Hughes writing He is one of the best IMO

And as the good Dr. Krogshöj pointed out Hughes included a disclaimer which I missed:


"Our position on team orders is that it is a natural part of racing anyway and even the FIA has accepted that in the midst of a championship showdown, they are inevitable. Far from attacking Ferrari, we fully support its actions in doing what it did in South Korea."

[555-04Q2]

It's all just BS!!!!! BS, BS, BS, BS, BS, BS....

They all furking cheat. Who gives a toss about it? It won't change any of our lives one little bit. Get on with the racing, it's been a fantastic season so far :up:

[mike.flynn]

You know different do you? From what I can tell, the article has been spun with an additional headline on a secondary site.

Hughes might not always write in a totally impartial manner, but he does have primary access to F1 teams, has been writing about F1 for many years, and as far as I know does not write inflammatory articles that are likely to get him sued. :dozey:

He might not write inflammatory articles that might get him sued, but often does lie, just one example;

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Mark_Hughes&id=42678

Hes clearly lying. Heres the lie.

'Fitting the softer tyres for Q2, he did one run and was quicker than Alonso by a whopping 0.6s.

However Fernando had made an error on his lap and so went out again for a second attempt, taking advantage of the track rubbering-in to set a lap 0.048s faster than Hamilton’s earlier effort.'


This never happened, he just made it up. Both Alonso and Hamilton went out together for one run in Q2 and Alonso beat Hamiltons time less than 1 minute later. You can check it on the live timing archive on F1.com although I also have the video of the session. One run in equal conditions at the same time and Alonso was faster. This fact proved a huge problem for Hughes because when you read the article you will see the whole frameword for his argument is that Hamilton was always quicker than Alonso in equal conditions throughout the weekend. So Alonso going quicker in the key Q2, the most important qual conditions session of all was an argument killer. So he just decided to lie and invent some bull**** and pretend Hamilton was quicker in Q3. A disgraceful piece of journalism.

The whole article is just full of hilarious excuses though, like where resorts to using Hamiltons first sector time of his final Q3 run to try to prove Hamilton was set to claim pole by 3 tenths thus proving he was the fastest man in qualifying. He spends the whole article picking little bits and moments from the weekend to try to prove Hamilton was quicker and totally ignoring actual completed laps or race pace.

All above quoted, because i'm not going through it again

Oh and just for the record, I think Hamilton is a great driver, i'm only posting this to do with Hughes

[ArrowsFA1]

Impeccable source, thats crap, he's just spreading rubbish so he gets more attention on his articles!
So this is rubbish? A lie?

...the information that Massa was slowed came from inside the Ferrari team.

[pallone col bracciale]

So this is rubbish? A lie?

As it cannot be proven, then you must assume it is.

Otherwise any kind of slander is made legitimate.

I have it on good authority that Martin Whitmarsh is a pick-pocket. You would not believe that, I assume?

[555-04Q2]

My sources in Ferrari state that Alonso loves Gummie Bears. Fat ones to be more precise..

[555-04Q2]

If you were a paddock insider rather than an armchair pundit like the rest of us I might just believe you there. Does Fred have a particular colour preference when he dips his hand in the packet? :p

Red of course!!!

[555-04Q2]

I'd prefer Silver if they did them, but any attempt would probably result in mercury poisoning. :eek:

You would just get accused of cheating for altering their colour ;) :D

[ArrowsFA1]

As it cannot be proven, then you must assume it is.
Tosh & piffle. As the author's source cannot be proved or disproved (wihout MH's source being revealed) we may draw our own conclusions.

If you wish to take this up with Mark Hughes he is responding to the discussion about his article in the Autosport website.

[ArrowsFA1]

...if Massa had passed Alonso and IF Hamilton had made the same mistake on the restart, then it would have been Massa that took advantage...
And if that order had remained the same then the points margin at the top of the WDC would look rather different.

But it's all ifs and buts :s mokin:

[Retro Formula 1]

Ferrari have proved time and time again that a clear #1 / #2 driver policy is the most successful. I don't know what the issue is.

I think it is quite probable that Butt Monkey is towing the line and offering every assistance he can to Alonso as he should do. He has no chance at the championship and is being paid to tow the line.

I think Jenson will decide to assist Lewis if he possibly can now and would suggest Vettel should get behind Mark although there's not much chance there.

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferrari have proved time and time again that a clear #1 / #2 driver policy is the most successful. I don't know what the issue is.
The example often given in favour of having a clear #1 is Williams in 1986 when Mansell and Piquet effectively allowed Prost to 'steal' the WDC from under their noses (that and Mansell's tyre blow-out!).

The Schumacher years at Ferrari is seen as being the perfect implementation of having a clear #1 and had any of this years main contenters been able to have such a policy the title might well have been won by now. However, the issue is Article 39.1 which prevents teams openly using team orders.

The sooner the FIA complete (start?) their review of Article 39.1 the better.

[mike.flynn]

Ferrari have proved time and time again that a clear #1 / #2 driver policy is the most successful. I don't know what the issue is.

I think it is quite probable that Butt Monkey is towing the line and offering every assistance he can to Alonso as he should do. He has no chance at the championship and is being paid to tow the line.

I think Jenson will decide to assist Lewis if he possibly can now and would suggest Vettel should get behind Mark although there's not much chance there.
I agree :up:

[Tazio]

And if that order had remained the same then the points margin at the top of the WDC would look rather different.

But it's all ifs and buts :s mokin:

The way Fred got the inters to work all the way to the end of the race, I think there was a high probability that He would have passed both The Boss and Massa on merit in the closing stages of the race. Although It's hard to gage Massa's late race pace as he had probably turned the wick down. But with his tyre situation Hamilton was a dead duck :arrowed:
And Felipe Baby is already on Engine #9

:s ailor: #9 #9 #9 #9... Lennon and McCartney on acid :burn:

[pallone col bracciale]

Tosh & piffle. As the author's source cannot be proved or disproved (wihout MH's source being revealed) we may draw our own conclusions.

You may draw a conclusion without a shred of evidence to support it if you so wish.

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.

[Tazio]

You may draw a conclusion without a shred of evidence to support it if you so wish.

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.


:s ailor: Don't start going mental!
Who ever wins the wdc will deserve it!! that's fair to say with only 2 races to go!

:grenade:
:grenade:
:grenade: :love:

[Arjuna]

I think everyone is entitled to their own pov, this isn't about I agree or disagree, in wet Felipe might struggle and by its nature drives a bit slow..

[ShiftingGears]

I think everyone is entitled to their own pov, this isn't about I agree or disagree, in wet Felipe might struggle and by its nature drives a bit slow..

He was excellent in Interlagos 2008. Did everything he could.

[ArrowsFA1]

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.
Why so touchy? No-one has a problem with Massa being asked to help his team leader in the way Mark Hughes has evidenced because Ferrari have made clear that Alonso is their #1 and they are doing everything they can to aid his fight for the title.

[nigelred5]

The "no team orders" rule has got to go.


Exactly. Stupid rule.

[nigelred5]

Until I see the second driver actively blocking a championship competetor with dangerous or prohibited blocking moves, I could casre less about team orders. Build a faster car, it won't be a problem.

[pallone col bracciale]

Why so touchy?

Because stronzo journalism should have no credibility given to it.

[pallone col bracciale]

Asking someone to produce evidence for something you can't prove on the contrary is equally amusing.

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

If we except the poor level of supposed evidence given by Hughes, then we must accept every uncoroborated claim put forward.

I am sure that you would agree that this would be unacceptable, as I expect you would not wish to see unsubstantiated claims made against, for example, Mr Lewis Hamilton or the Mclaren team.

Anybody who stands in the paddock could claim to have been told something by a team insider. Just being in the paddock is no evidence that what is claimed is true.

It is weak journalism at best, scandal-mongering by any other name and, at worse, a cynical attempt to denigrate.

Mr Hughes needs to report facts he can prove or not report. He has been unprofessional.

It is disappointing that apparently intelligent people give credibility to such a bad piece of professional work, but refreshing that enough intelligent people have taken Hughes to task about it and forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.

[Tazio]

Goodnight Irene :s nore:

[ArrowsFA1]

...forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.
You're very clear with your opinion (stated as if it were fact) that you don't believe what Hughes has written, which is fair enough.

However, I am more interested in the above. Where exactly has Hughes admitted there is "no substantive substance to his words"?


I wasn't claiming that Massa held up Schumacher (though admit wording in report wasn't very precise on that). Michael was too far back for that to have been the case. That claim was made on someone else's web site. I was claiming that in slowing down as instructed, Massa was preventing HIMSELF from passing Alonso.

I repeat I have absolutely no problem with what they did. It's the most logical and natural thing in the world given that they are fighting for the world title. But it did happen.

[Big Ben]

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.

[ShiftingGears]

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.

There wouldn't be much information disclosed to the public if it weren't for undisclosed sources. It's always been part of journalism. It's always up to the person receiving the information to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.

I'm willing to say that there's a possibility that Hughes' source is correct. The situation, and hence unwillingness to be named as a source, is plausible.

[ShiftingGears]

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie.

:laugh:

I am currently drinking a can of Coke. Because I don't have proof, am I therefore lying to you?

[SGWilko]

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

If we except the poor level of supposed evidence given by Hughes, then we must accept every uncoroborated claim put forward.

I am sure that you would agree that this would be unacceptable, as I expect you would not wish to see unsubstantiated claims made against, for example, Mr Lewis Hamilton or the Mclaren team.

Anybody who stands in the paddock could claim to have been told something by a team insider. Just being in the paddock is no evidence that what is claimed is true.

It is weak journalism at best, scandal-mongering by any other name and, at worse, a cynical attempt to denigrate.

Mr Hughes needs to report facts he can prove or not report. He has been unprofessional.

It is disappointing that apparently intelligent people give credibility to such a bad piece of professional work, but refreshing that enough intelligent people have taken Hughes to task about it and forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.

Wow, so, when faced with factual evidence of;

The gap between Alonso and Massa pre pit stop, and the gap post pit stop, given Alonso's delay in the pits while the pit crew fumbled for a nut (how many times have you done that when working on your car...???)......

And yet, Massa was still behind.

I would hazard a guess that, unless time stood still a bit for all those cars behind Lewis, or the Langolears are in town again, that Massa slowed down.

And, if Massa slowed down, in order to avoid rear ending him, the car behind would have had to slow down, and so on (assuming they were close enough to him to have to do that, but as it was the Shoe, we can summise that he was 'miles behind').

In other words, Massa bunched the pack up.

It's really quite simple when you engage the grey matter......

[ArrowsFA1]

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.
A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.

[AndyL]

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

So unless you can prove something, it is a lie? :crazy: Can you prove your claim that Hughes' claim is a falsehood?

[Retro Formula 1]

A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.


In my opinion, I will take the opinion and claims of a Journalist as something to be considered and judged on it's merits. This article makes sense.

[Big Ben]

A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.

But that means any journalist could say whatever he wants 'quoting' secret inside sources. I simply don't want to give them that power. What they say should always be available to be checked