Benefit Of The Doubt

06/06/2014
FEATURE BY GUEST AUTHORS

"The Boy doesn't have it in him," was 'Judge' Martin Brundle's view of the evidence after Nico Rosberg was called by the Stewards at the Monaco Grand Prix. What had Nico done to bring his behavior on track into question?

In the dying moments of Qualifying, as Nico's Mercedes WO5 Hybrid hurtled down the hill from Casino Square to Mirabeau, both car and driver suddenly became unglued. First there was a feeble lock-up of the right front wheel by Rosberg as he braked late, followed by a visible stuttering of the chassis and a wobbling of the steering wheel as if the chassis had gone out of alignment and finally the decision by Rosberg seemingly to abort the lap by veering left down the escape road instead of continuing to turn right around Mirabeau the corner down towards the hairpin. Rosberg then apparently tried to reverse as if to rejoin the fray, acting totally flummoxed.

Needless to say, all this frantic activity at Mirabeau Corner brought out the yellow flag with less than a minute remaining, thus ruining the qualifying laps of several of the drivers still out on the track busting their chops to put in their best lap, including Rosberg's teammate Lewis Hamilton, the German's chief challenger for the pole position, having taken pole at three out of the previous five races thus far in 2014. Rosberg said afterwards that he was not sure where Hamilton was behind him. With everyone else's session brought to an artificially early halt, the German's earlier banker lap became pole position.

Summoned by the Stewards

Hamilton's gloom at the Qualifying press conference showed that he smelled a rat. Hamilton was already a few tenths up on Rosberg in Sector 1 and had set the fastest Sector 2 time on previous laps so he had every reason to believe that he was faster than Nico on the day. Race Director Charlie Whiting also thought the incident looked to be worth investigating by the Stewards of the Meeting and sent them a message to do so.

As of 16:35, the paddock rumor mill was working overtime as the Stewards posted Document No. 28 (Pdf) of the race weekend on the FIA bulletin board, stating that "the driver [of car 6, Nico Rosberg] and team representative are required to report to the Stewards at [17:15 PM] in relation to the incident below." The reason for Rosberg being summoned was stated tersely and with no detail: "Qualifying Turn 5 incident at 14:59."

Where was the Indictment of Charges?

It is a fundamental feature of due process that the accused be given notice of the charges preferred against him and surprisingly, the Stewards did not give the F1 press corps or Rosberg/Mercedes the courtesy of citing what provisions of the F1 Sporting Regulations he was charged with violating.

Looking through the F1 Sporting Regulations, they had a number of potential breaches of various Articles that could conceivably have grown out of this one split-second incident at Mirabeau.

An "incident" under the FIA Sporting Regulations is any occurrence or series of occurrences which constitutes a breach of the Sporting Regulations.

Article 20.2 states that "a driver may not deliberately leave the track without justification... a driver will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with the track.

Article 20.5 states the "manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted".

Article 20.2 also provides that "should a car leave the track the driver may rejoin, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage".

It will be recalled that in the initial press conference after Qualifying, Nico Rosberg conceded that he had reversed out of the escape road while Qualifying was still in progress, saying "of course I am sorry for what happened to Lewis. I didn't know where exactly [Lewis] was but once I was reversing I did see he was coming up so, um, of course, yeah, that's not great but that's the way it is."

Article 30.2 under "General Safety" states that "drivers are strictly forbidden to drive their cars in the opposite direction to the race unless this is absolutely necessary in order to move the car from a dangerous position." A subdivision of that rule states that "during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behavior on circuits".

Article 30.4 continues the theme: "Under no circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason".

Article 30.13 is an interesting one in light of Rosberg's squirrely working of the steering wheel before heading for the escape road: "at no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."

Article 31.7 is another possibly relevant provision the Stewards might have included in their Indictment, if there had been one: "any driver taking part in any practice session who, in the opinion of the Stewards, stops unnecessarily on the circuit or unnecessarily impedes another driver shall be subject to the penalties referred to in Article 31.6". In the FIA's rules the term "Qualifying Practice" is also sometimes used to describe Qualifying as well as Practice.

Finally, Article 33.2 is under the Qualifying portion of the Sporting Regulations and it states that "any driver whose car stops on the circuit during the qualifying session will not be permitted to take any further part in the session. Any car which stops on the circuit during the qualifying session, and which is returned to the pits before the end of the session, will be held in parc ferme until the end of the session."

Crucially, it is significant that this Article 33.2 in the current Sporting Regulations has been amended over the years. Here is what it used to say, as Article 116 in previous versions of the Sporting Regulations: "If, in the opinion of the stewards a driver deliberately stops on the circuit or impedes another driver in any way during the qualifying practice session his times will be cancelled. In this case, a team will not be able to appeal against the steward's decision." You will note that this former Article 116 is similar - but not identical - to the current Article 31.7 quoted above.

With this plethora of possible violations, you would think that the Stewards had plenty to work with and that whatever conclusion they reached would be replete with findings and conclusions and citations to authorities, just as the Stewards had done in the Australian Grand Prix when they ruled against Daniel Ricciardo on the fuel flow issue.

Not so here.

In a one sentence report, with no reference whatsoever to any of the FIA's Sporting Regulations, the Stewards Document No. 33 (Pdf) states that "the Stewards examined video and telemetry data from the team and FIA and could find no evidence of any offense related to the turn 5 incident... No offense was committed by the driver of car 6".

There were over a dozen rulings by the Stewards over the Monaco race weekend and every one of those rulings cited chapter and verse of the rules in question - except the Nico Rosberg incident, which was bereft of any analysis or citation to authority.

In short, the Stewards at Monaco in 2014 - ex-F1 driver rep Derek Warwick, Monaco Automobile Club rep Christian Calmes, FIA Vice President Jose Abed and of Paul Gutjahr, President of the FIA Hill Climb Commission turned in an abysmal performance: poor stewardship you might say.

Deja Vu All Over Again

In Monaco 2006 Qualifying Michael Schumacher was involved in a similar 'parking' incident with his Ferrari 248 F1 at the other end of the track at Rascasse, coming to a halt with a wiggle of his steering wheel in a manner that blocked the track, brought out the yellows and prevented Fernando Alonso in his Renault R25 from completing his last qualifying lap. 'Judge' Martin Brundle had a quite a different view in allocating blame for that episode and of the driver's character, having been a teammate of Schumacher's at Benetton. Said Brundle: "With [Schumacher's] reputation, nobody really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt." The Stewards agreed with Brundle: Schumacher's time was deleted and he started the race from pit lane.

In Monaco 2006, it was the first race weekend for the UK lawyer Tony Scott Andrews being one of the Stewards; his co-Stewards were the more experienced Monaco Automobile Club representative Christian Calmes - also a Steward at Monaco in 2014 - and Spanish FIA delegate Joaquin Verdegay. According to the May 31, 2006 news report of long-standing New York Times Formula One journalist Brad Spurgeon, this was what the Stewards did in 2006 at Monaco:

"First, in order to come to their decision, the stewards spoke to:

Michael Schumacher
his race engineer, Chris Dyer
his technical director, Ross Brawn
his team manager, Stefano Domenicali
the FIA race director, Charlie Whiting
the FIA software analyst, Alan Prudom

They looked at data provided by both the FIA and Ferrari.

They watched the video of the incident.

They also compared the data of the lap of the incident and compared it to his previous laps.

And here are some quotes from their conclusion, in which the stewards...

"Find that having set a fast time in sector 1 the driver lost time in sector 2, arrived at turn 18 at a speed little if any different from his previous fastest lap and braked with such force that his front wheels locked up requiring the driver to regain control of the car. The driver ultimately did so without hitting the barrier on the outside of turn 18. The engine of the car subsequently stalled with the result that the car partially blocked the track.

Having compared all relevant data the Stewards can find no justifiable reason for the driver to have braked with such undue, excessive and unusual pressure to this part of the circuit and are therefore left with no alternative but to conclude that the driver deliberately stopped his car on the circuit in the last few minutes of Qualifying at a time at which he had thus far set the fastest lap time." (Emphasis added.)

That was the lawyerly Tony Scott Andrews wording. Here is the much more colorful way that Steward Joaquin Verdegay put it:

"We do not know if the whole manoeuvre was deliberate but it is certain that at that point of the track he had never done anything of that sort all weekend."

"He braked 50% harder than he had on the other laps and made a counter-steer movement which was absolutely not necessary, which lasted for five metres, to the point at which it was no longer possible for him to correctly turn the corner."

"He lost control of the car when he was travelling at 10mph, which is absolutely unjustifiable and the engine stalled because he wanted it to, losing the time necessary for engaging the clutch."

"So we applied Article 116 of the sporting regulations: if a driver affects the results of other drivers by committing an error, you can cancel all his lap times." (Emphasis added.)

At that time, the FIA Sporting Regulations had Article 116 which stated as follows:

"Any driver whose car stops on the circuit during the qualifying session will not be permitted to take any further part in the session... if, in the opinion of the stewards, a driver deliberately stops on the circuit or impedes another driver in any way during the qualifying practice session his times will be cancelled. In this case, a team will not be able to appeal against the steward's decision." Article 116.

Today's comparable rule is Rule 33.2 which is much milder and states as follows: "Any driver whose car stops on the circuit during the qualifying session will not be permitted to take any further part in the session. Any car which stops on the circuit during the qualifying session, and which is returned to the pits before the end of the session, which will be held in parc ferme until the end of the session."

At the time of the Schumacher episode in 2006, Jean Todt, then Ferrari's principal and now President of the FIA, was naturally in disagreement with the findings of the Stewards and had a shrewd observation that resonates in 2014: "What kind of precedent does that set? Will all drivers who make silly but honest mistakes in qualifying, thereby affecting others' laps but gaining a benefit as a result automatically have their times disqualified?"

If there is one obvious recommendation that emerges from this Rosberg episode it is that what used to be Article 116 of the Sporting Regulations should be completely reinstated by the FIA because the diluted version we have as current Article 33.2 has no teeth.

A Team of Rivals

Back in the Gentlemen Racer era of Grand Prix racing, in the 1958 Portuguese Grand Prix, two rivals competing for the World Championship found themselves involved in an incident that occurred during the race. Mike Hawthorn and his Dino 246 had run off the tram-lined Oporto track and he was accused of pushing his car against the run of the traffic in order to get the Ferrari back into the race. Hawthorn eventually finished second to Stirling Moss's Vanwall in the race. When the stewards called him into the dock to investigate the incident, amazingly, it was Hawthorn's chief competitor, Stirling Moss, who came forward as a material witness, reporting to the stewards that he had seen the whole episode and that Hawthorn had done nothing wrong and should be exonerated. Who needs defense counsel with Stirling Moss as your advocate! Hawthorn was allowed to retain his points and at the end of that 1958 Season Moss lost the World Drivers' Championship to his rival by a single point!

But that was then and this was now.

In the Rosberg episode, the main victim was his teammate Hamilton, who was on a hot lap, and yet the Stewards did not question him. Had the immediate victim been a driver from another team it would be interesting to consider if that driver would have been called as a witness, or if a rival team could have been the complainant in such an incident.

The Importance of Being Earnest

In the Rosberg incident, the Stewards again agreed with Judge Brundle and found no reason to take any disciplinary action. In retrospect, notwithstanding the weaker disciplinary rules prevailing in 2014, the turning point in both cases was arguably the reputation in the paddock of the driver whose character and behavior was in question: Schumacher with his reputation for slicing the salami too thin on several occasions; Rosberg, the handsome son of 1982 World Drivers' Champion Keke Rosberg, blessed with intelligence, good looks, a sunny disposition and a cherubic reputation. Who could believe Nico could do such a thing?

And yet... could Rosberg have made the turn at Mirabeau if he wanted to? Wouldn't he have been able to make the turn if the incident had happened during the race itself rather than in qualifying?

Only one person knows. And it is a shame that the absence of professionalism on the part of the Stewards and their failure to analyze the incident thoroughly and convincingly and explain it to us will forever leave an element of doubt hanging over Rosberg's reputation for that day in May 2014. He will not get the benefit of the doubt next time.

Tom O'Keefe

Article from Pitpass (http://www.pitpass.com):

Published: 06/06/2014
Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2024. All rights reserved.