The Weekly Grapevine

The stewards' verdict

If Saturday in Monaco proved just one thing, it surely proved the independence of the FIA's stewards, who, following the appointment of Tony Scott-Andrews as first-ever permanent chief steward, were called upon to make the toughest of calls - and came up trumps, even if only for having had the courage to call it the way they saw it.

And, the 'if' is not to imply that their that call was incorrect (or vice versa, for that matter), for without having access to the data they so obviously had, only those of questionable objectivity would/could criticize the decision that Michael Schumacher deliberately parked his Ferrari in the dying moments of qualifying so as to impede the progress of those drivers who could still beat him to the pole position.

Of course, the team's managing director Jean Todt was highly critical of the decision - leaving both himself and the Scuderia open to charges of bringing the sport's governance into disrepute - whilst Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo added his voice come Monday - his opinions presumably being aired belatedly so as to prevent further action by the trio of stewards (one each British, Spanish and Monegasque).

Unfortunately their nationalities caused their judgment to be called into question by those who should know better.

Schumacher's manager Willi Weber has been amongst the most vocal, four days after the event, at that, suggesting that Joaquin Verdegay made an anti-Schumacher call because Verdegay's Spanish compatriot Fernando Alonso stood to gain pole position from 'guilty' verdict against the German Ferrari driver.

Is Weber a step away from suggesting that Scott-Andrews, a lawyer by profession, factored into his judgment that Australian Mark Webber, promoted to the front row through Schumacher's disqualification, is a Commonwealth member driving for the archetypal English Williams team?

Or that Dr Christian Calmes, a French-speaking Monegasque dental surgeon, considered the positions of Renault and Michelin in the matter?

Willi Weber © XPB/LAT

For sure, the stewards would have been mindful of the far greater pressures (for leniency) that could conceivably have come from a Bernie Ecclestone desperate for a 'good show' between the two title protagonists.

Monaco is, after all, Formula One's glittering crown jewel, and the race weekend was the first in the principality since CVC Capital Partners - controlled by Monaco-based Donald McKenzie - had bought into the sport. And, given the sponsors and high-rollers poncing about the place and basking on yachts, Ecclestone would surely have wanted the 2006 championship front-runners to make a nail-biting affair of the 78-lap street race.

All the more credit, then, to Messrs Scott-Andrews and Co.

So, apart from the fact that the data showed Alonso to be three tenths up on Schumacher going into the third sector, waltzing to pole position until he reached the spot where Michael 'crashed' at 16 km/h, Weber's allegations are an insult to a thorough investigation, the result of which was clearly painful for all concerned.

Far better, in fact, to explain why Schumacher had no problem negotiating the oh-so tricky La Rascasse during the slow-down lap with one hand on the wheel whilst waving to the crowd with the other.

Surely, given the background, the prudent approach at this Turn 18 would have been to firmly grasp the wheel with both hands to prevent a repeat?

As for Jean Todt's assertion that "With no real evidence, the stewards have assumed he (Schumacher) is guilty", given that the stewards studied every possible angle, delved into every scrap of presented data, viewed video evidence and interviewed all associated parties before reaching their conclusions, what evidence then did Ferrari withhold from the stewards for Todt to make such an extraordinary statement?

After all, if no "real evidence" was presented by Ferrari's employees, what was given to the stewards during the investigations? Maybe the "real evidence" should be retrospectively presented?

And, for Schumacher to suggest that only those who drive Formula One cars can judge whether a deliberately prejudicial act had been committed is equal nonsense: did the officials refereeing Mike Tyson's darkest fight actually have to taste the remnants of Evander Holyfield's ear to know he had been orally mauled; do medical doctors have to experience cardiac arrest before being deemed sufficiently qualified to diagnose heart attacks?

The bottom line is that Schumacher had captured provisional pole position before setting another blistering Sector 1 time, then it all soured in Sector 2, where he lost time and entered the final sector down on his previous lap.

He admitted in Saturday's media conference that at that stage he believed "all (drivers) were on a fast lap", which, by implication, includes Alonso and Webber.

The rest is, as they say, history...

Michael Schumacher celebrates his pole position © XPB/LAT

In the vast majority of civilized legal systems, a balance of probabilities is deemed sufficient for a judgment to be handed down, whereas criminal matters need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Without doubt, sporting regulations fall into the former category, and, thus, Schumacher's guilt was decided on the balance of probabilities, and did not require to be proven beyond reasonable doubt - although applying the criminal acid test would likely have resulted in a guilty verdict on Saturday past.

About the only questionable aspect of the verdict was the total scrapping of all times set by Schumacher during the white-knuckle hour, for, according to the regulations, all times are automatically zeroed after Q2, and thus only Schumacher's Q3 times still stood officially as he headed for Rascasse on that peculiar lap.

As such, a case could be made that he should have been relegated to the back of the Q3 qualifiers - to wit, to tenth on the grid.

But, having applied Article 112 of the Sporting Regulations, which allows the stewards to delete any number of a guilty driver's laptimes without recourse to appeal, Schumacher had no choice but to groan and bear it.

That said, in the FIA's Paris archives lurks a precedent, one which indicates that Schumacher was fortunate to take the start at all, and is fortunate to stand every chance of winning next weekend's British Grand Prix at Silverstone and all Grands Prix through to Monza.

In 1997, at Macau, the stewards decided that Italian Max Angelelli deliberately blocked the track after being punted out of his aggregate lead by Tom Coronel.

Angelleli was immediately disqualified from the (stopped) race, and the matter referred to the governing body.

After a Paris hearing, at which all data - by its nature immeasurably inferior to that available to the Monaco stewards - was analyzed, the Italian was banned for three months.

That verdict was reached on the basis of balance of probabilities, and, whilst Schumacher's misdemeanour was committed during a preliminary session and the main event, there can be little doubt that, in the pecking order of the sport, Monaco Formula One World Championship qualifying - watched live by zillions - ranks a touch above a non-championship F3 race, even if that event be the feeder category's blue riband race.

Thus, following Angelleli's precedent, Michael Schumacher should have, by rights, been disqualified for at least three months. But, would the stewards have managed to make that stick?

Tyre concerns

Before that La Rascasse incident on Saturday, the big talking point in Monaco was tyres, but not those on Michael Schumacher's Ferrari during the weekend, which a Ferrari press release implied were to blame for the rather lacklustre times set by the German on Thursday.

Bridgestone tire on the Ferrari 248 F1 © XPB/LAT

What would Bridgestone be doing to ensure absolute fairness in 2007, was the general line.

Would the company be supplying 2004 specification tyres - which were rather devastating in their effectiveness, taking Ferrari to 15 wins - or would the Japanese tyre manufacturer supply developments of their 2006 rubber. For that matter, would a brand new family be developed, one with characteristics unknown to all teams, Bridgestone's present partners - Ferrari, Williams, Toyota, Midland and Aguri?

Supplying 2005-specification rubber would, for the obvious reasons of last year's single-set regulation, be impractical.

Ultimately the question had been driven by Flavio Briatore's suggestions that Bridgestone's present partners would have inherent advantages when the entire field switches to the Japanese brand after Michelin's voluntary withdrawal at season's end. And, to be fair on Bridgestone, the company seems to be taking allegations of unfairness very seriously.

But, what exactly would be unfair about whatever rubber Bridgestone eventually decides to supply? On the one hand it has a loyal partner base, one which stuck with their products through thick and thin, warm and cold, wet and dry, and on the other it has six teams joining Bridgestone - for, possibly one year, for the regulatory 2008 supplier has yet to be announced - not by choice, but by utter necessity.

Of course, any number of teams could have made the switch last year, but, based on Ferrari's (rather dismal) 2005 performance, chose to stay with the devil they knew, rather than switch brands.

Unlike Williams and Toyota, who chose short-term pain for long-term gain - the former for competitive reasons and the latter for reasons with commercial (road car) overtones - those teams who remained on the French rubber conveniently overlooked the long-standing possibility that Michelin would exit the sport ahead of F1's switch to a single tyre manufacturer for 2008.

With Michelin's departure next year, all will change on the rubber front, as it will, too, the following year.

But why should Bridgestone change in any way its modus operandi, regardless of bleating, purely because a competitor has voluntarily left the sport?

The company will in any event have to up production (by 250%) to cater for the six 'newcomers', and take on additional staff to operate a bigger fleet of vehicles, but beyond that it has no responsibilities to redesign its products or to accommodate the foibles hoisted upon the six by their present competitor's technology, which differs vastly from that employed by Bridgestone.

For reasons of fairness, Bridgestone will need make available all incomers its data as soon as possible, whilst simultaneously ensuring that its trade secrets are respected.

After all, just why should Renault be given carte blanche access to Bridgestone's present secrets for 2007 development purposes, secrets which could severely compromise the Ferrari/Bridgestone partnership's chances of beating the French alliance, merely because the French team has no choice but to switch to Bridgestone for next season.

There is still a major battle to be won by Bridgestone this year.

Equally, why should Bridgestone 'dumb down' their tyres for 2007, thereby disadvantaging its 2006 partner base, merely to appease the fears of its present opposition? The company has an obligation towards itself, its teams, its shareholders and its customers to provide the best rubber possible - within the constraints of its budgets - and supplying three-year old rubber to the entire 2007 grid hardly meets that objective.

The best cost-performance option is for Bridgestone to continue supplying 2006-specification rubber to all teams next year, making all data available to all teams after the last race of this year, the Brazilian Grand Prix. And, if in the process certain teams are disadvantaged, that just happens to be the price to be paid for their myopia.