Explaining the team orders predicament

Come 1600 CET on Sunday afternoon in Hungary, two things were absolutely clear: Michael Schumacher may have lost some of his once-vaunted skills sets, but his customary ruthlessness had mellowed little with time; and that Article 39.1* is creating a far bigger headache for the FIA than could ever have been imagined when the clause was framed back in 2002.

The German's antics have been diissected across the world, so need no amplification within these pages - save to suggest that he reflect on his comeback and the precise reasons for it, for there seems to be more to his return than meets the eye.

Ditto Mercedes, who must surely by now have learned that the 'dream team' of Schumacher and Silver Arrows has deteriorated into a nightmare quicker than Schumacher eased Barrichello towards the pit wall on Sunday, and that the time has come to stop spinning the situation in the hopes of selling sufficient new product to justify Schumacher's astronomical stipend.

When sections of the German media openly suggest Mercedes would be better served by present third driver Nick Heidfeld - who was their country's invisible man during Schumacher's heyday - than by the seven-time world champion, the time has surely come for management to sit up and take note, yet excuse after excuse for Schumacher's poor showings are trotted out throughout race weekends. A sign of good management is an ability to cut losses regardless of collateral implications, and the time seems over-ripe for that.

"That could have been a horrible accident," said David Coulthard, once a Mercedes career man with a personal collection of three-pointed-star cars. "He never knows when to give it up — and that might be the case now with his comeback."

Back to Art 39.1. That the FIA has scheduled a separate session for the hearing into Ferrari's German Grand Prix antics is hugely remarkable, for even 'spygate' was dispensed with during the course of a normal World Motor Sport Council meeting, while the team orders issue has been set down for Wednesday, September 8 in Paris, with a scheduled, albeit 'extraordinary', WMSC meeting scheduled for Lake Como (two days later) on the (Italian GP) Friday.

The hearing will be doubly significant, for not only will the matter be the first major issue heard by the WMSC under its devolved structure in which the president is no longer - to coin a phrase - 'investigating officer-prosecutor-chief witness-judge-and-jury-in-one' as was the situation under past-president Max Mosley (and decreed irregular by the French High Court in the wake of the Flavio Briatore affair), but also a hearing into a regulation introduced by Mosley in the wake of Ferrari's Austria 2002 team orders debacle.

The Scuderia's team principal was then none other than Jean Todt, current president of the FIA, and thus overseer of the WMSC and required to uphold the regulations - including a clause introduced in the wake of his decision to order Barrichello aside for Schumacher on that sunny May day at the A1-Ring.

A straw poll in Hungary, the first real opportunity of sounding out the media on the matter due to post-race deadlines at Hockenheim, indicated there were three distinctly different takes on Ferrari's ordering of Felipe Massa aside in favour of Fernando Alonso: those totally opposed to a ban on team orders, believing them to be part of the fabric of a sport which requires that teams officially under the control of team principals enter two cars for a team of drivers and that said team has the right to decide its own strategies; those who fundamentally agree with the foregoing, but point to a law forbidding the race order to be influenced by team orders; and those who firmly believe they should be banned, regardless of any considerations.

The FIA's problem is that team orders can be subtly applied (a 'missed' braking point here, a driver ostensibly voluntarily slowing there, a 'botched' pitstop) and will thus continue to be an intrinsic element of F1. All of which is bit like legalising burglaries as long as the house inhabitants aren't woken.

Then there is the issue of there being three simultaneous competitions during the course of a single grand prix: the race for victory, the race for drivers' championship points and a race for constructors' championship standings, where placings influence the allocation and size of motorhome spaces and garages, and quantities of paddock passes for the following season and a proportionate share of the 'Bernie (TV) Money'.

Felipe Massa and Fernando Alonso © LAT

Strategies for all three competitions can vary considerably and thus teams may well favour a certain driver over his team-mate, and Ferrari can (and probably will) legitimately argue that, going to Hockenheim, the objective of the entire team was to garner as many points as possible for Fernando Alonso, who stood (and still stands) the best chance of the two of becoming champion.

As for the apology voiced by Rob Smedley, Massa's race engineer and bosom buddy, after the incident - well, 'sorry' has been said for far more (and less) in Formula 1 than a missed victory - read Schumacher's website for starters.

All of which leaves the FIA with a major predicament, for to find Ferrari not guilty under those circumstances would leave the governing body open to accusations that 'Ferrari International Assistance' is alive and well despite (or due to) a change at the very top, while a guilty cop accompanied by an appreciable sanction could find Ferrari turning to courts of law - such as it (and Briatore) did recently - and there a judge could just find that Ferrari did not 'order' Massa aside, merely advised him to do so.

Fortunately for the FIA Art 39.1, written as a knee-jerk reaction to a despicable event by a body then obsessed by 24-hour news cycles, is as vague as it is possible to be in legal parlance, and thus offers more than enough wriggle room.

Thus Hungary had a plethora of white-shirted FIA folk - elected officials, rather than paid employees or consultants - about the paddock, possibly sounding out the place about the matter ahead of September's hearing. One source in the know is adamant a solution which allows Ferrari to escape unpunished while saving FIA face has been found, and was being put about the Budapest paddock.

"I think what you'll find," he said on Saturday, "is that the stewards in Germany confused team orders with team strategy. It is very clear that Ferrari is concentrating on the championship, while the stewards thought Ferrari was playing about with the race result."

So, will Article 39.1 be scrapped or overlooked, then? "No, it will remain on the books."

How so, for that makes team orders illegal? "Yes, but the FIA now obviously believes that team orders are any order handed down which affects or jeopardises another team, not drivers within the same team."

Here, think Jerez 1997, where McLaren and Williams allegedly colluded to assure Jacques Villeneuve of a race finish and world title after being battered off the road by Schumacher.

Thus Ferrari could be found not guilty (save for having indirectly admitted being in breach by paying the $100,000* fine on the day without protest) by pleading the competition the Scuderia was primarily competing in was the race for the championship (in which Alonso was well ahead of Massa, so the result has not changed), allowing the likes of Red Bull and McLaren to openly indulge in team strategies should the need arise as the season progresses, while enabling the FIA to keep the contentious ruling on the books.

It has become increasingly clear that the new regime is intent on elegant solutions rather than confrontation, and if our well-placed source is correct - and he has yet to have been found wanting - this solution to a prickly problem could be hard to beat.

Jean Todt © LAT

*Article 39.1 of the 2010 Formula 1 Sporting Regulations:

39) The race
39.1 Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

**Interestingly the current FIA International Sporting Code lists the maximum penalty per offence as $50,000 unless increased, which would appear not to be the case:

153. Scale of penalties
Penalties may be inflicted as follows in order of increasing severity:
- reprimand (blame);
- fines;
- time penalty;
- exclusion;
- suspension;
- disqualification.

For the FIA Formula One World Championship and the FIA World Rally Championship, a penalty consisting of the withdrawal of points over the whole of the Championship may be imposed.

154. Fines
The infliction of a fine may be ordered by an ASN or by the stewards of the meeting. However when these fines are inflicted by the stewards they may not exceed a certain sum which will be set each year by the FIA.

155. Maximum fine given by the stewards of the meeting:
Until further notice, published here or in the Official Bulletin, the maximum fine that shall be inflicted is 50,000 US dollars.