Driving behaviour after the court hearing of Jerez 1997

[Knowlesy]

I'm sorry if this is garbage to you all.....I've just read the Autosport that immediately followed the FIA hearing for Schuey Senior following Jerez 1997 and it got me thinking....this isn't a Michael bash ( although it may seem like it), just a general point about standards. It's probably total rubbish (not new from me!), but I feel it's worth posting anyways.....

We have all complained over the years about a great deal of bad behaviour or, to put it another way, on the limit behaviour on the track in Formula 1. Let's cast our minds back to a certain November day in 1997, the day of an FIA court hearing, the day a precedent may have been set. I'm referring of course to the Michael Schumacher hearing immediately following Jerez 1997.......

We all know what happened in that race and what Michael did that day was utterly cynical and one of the most abysmal examples of behaviour seen in F1 for some time. Certainly the worst incident since Suzuka 1990.

A world title was on the line and one of the protagonists involved, in his desperation to win the title, decided to use his car as a dodgem to ram his challenger off the track for daring to pass him. It was deliberate and Michael as good as admitted so.

We all expected the FIA to crack down on this. I seem to remember actually Max Mosley saying in the pre-race brief that drivers who employed any dirty tricks to decide the championship faced the SEVEREST PENALTIES IMAGINABLE. Michaels move certainly fell into this category.

A hearing was arranged shortly after.

Schumacher emerged from this hearing stripped of his championship position from 1997 (2nd, as it turned out) and was given X hours of FIA road safety campaign service.

Now, what did it matter to be stripped of a 2nd place in the title race when it was so obvious that 1st was all that mattered on this occasion? And the FIA service thing hardly counts as punishment.

No. A lot of us thought that to really send out a message to all the drivers, a ban was in order. That would prevent this kind of behaviour. I was in favour of this....and at the time I was cheering for Michael and Ferrari!

This wasn't done of course......and I guess the sport has suffered as a result.

We see a lot of unethical behaviour on track these days. I've been trawling through old threads these past few days and looking through old books and magazines and there have been numerous incidents, some minor some major that would have shocked us all once upon a time but now are passed as "normal" and "this is motor racing, not a tea party".

I think this all stems from the FIA's inability to do anything when an incident occurs. People have obviously seen at jerez 1997 that you can go extremely far and remain virtually unpunished and so are prepared to go that little further towards ill advised manouevres. And it really shows with what we see.....aggressive chops everywhere, budging someone onto the grass every so often.

It's all a contrast to the old days. I watched the full 1979 season recently (courtesy of Jay! Cheers mate! )and the racing is totally fair. Hard, hard racers like Gilles Villeneuve and Alan Jones going at it hammer and tongs but always giving that little bit of room , not much, but just enough. Exciting to watch, enormously fun and competitive, full of respect and above all fair and sporting.

The FIA missed its chance to stamp down on bad behaviour that day I feel. If a ban had been dished out to Michael for the beginning of 1998, I feel we would see fairer tactics. I guess we are destined to go through more borderline tactics. Eventually someone will try to "do a Jerez" and the governing body will crack down and we can return to fairer racing. Yeah, I wish.

Cheers for reading!

Feel free to discuss!

[Svend]

I think it is just disgusting as even some racing drivers try to justify for example the move Michael made on Juan in Imola. I'm very strictly someone who thinks one should leave at least 1 car width to the other drivers, unfortunately the drivers think otherwise. But is this due the the lack of a strong arm from the FIA? I don't think so. In the 70/80's it was as strong or weak as it is today.

Taking the survival cell away will for sure help a lot more.

[Gt_R]

Before i continue, Let's just put it this way, Michael can be hanged for it and still there would be cynics asking for more.

I'm being utterly honest here..no matter what happens, MS MUST face the harshest of punishments, yet when other drivers are punished, FIA is biased or too harsh and should show leniency. The double standard can get out of hand.

But let' take this thread in the "best" light.

MS himself admitted it is deliberate. So i won't argue that MS is guilty of that.

Now, take an understanding to the events leading to that moment. MS was signed to bring success back to Maranello. He's given a **** car in 96 and in 97 the car wasn't much better... but the pressure is on for MS to deliver ASAP. Ferrari fans are not the most patient fans (esp after waiting for over a decade), mind you.

Come Jerez, everything went great with MS ahead of JV and the chance to finally win the WDC was there so real. Casual watchers won't realise how big a dream that was to come true...but it all fell away when MS had a mechanical failure (really stupid isn't it? Nobody said MS had bad luck when he faces terrible reliability but now just because he had a reliable car he's LUCKY to win it). JV caught him up and the moment is there...MS had to "do or die", it's all or nothing really, MS knew he had an almost impossible task of defending it and he's prepared.

Then came that moment. JV took a pretty risky shot by attempting a move from quite a distance back, taking a deep shot (come to think of it, not too different from what Alonso pulled on Ralf). It kind of caught MS off guard and he reacted too late. Defending is impossible now, and the next option instinctively is to "hit". The stakes for the WDC is so high then...and MS made his decision at the moment, ill-planned, ill-executed, ill-intentions, and wrong.

Come punishment time... What are the options available to FIA? Fine? MS/Ferrari is paid so much a hefty fine won't make too much a difference. Ban? Sure it's going to hurt MS/Ferrari, but would we want a WDC the following year "just because" MS was banned for 3 races for an incident the PREVIOUS year? Road Safety campaign? It doesn't hurt much perhaps, but surely a slap on the hand and at least it contributes to the community.

Anyway, it won't change anybody's mind so really we can argue to our deaths and still remain the same.

[Gt_R]

Anyway, just curious..but how do you think MS should be punished???

[rodrigomarban]

Yes, I'm also in favour of giving more severe penalties to drivers who behave badly on track.

I'm very young, so I couldn't watch the 70's and 80's racing: I started watching F1 in 1994, I was 7 years old at the time. I remember perfectly the 1997 Schumacher-Villeneuve crash. The only word I can think of to describe it is the same as knowlesy used: It was a cynical action. (And I was also supporting Schumacher at the time)

The same thing happens in Champ Cars: I'm tired of all Paul Tracy's dirty maneuvres that never get penalised.

I think the solution would be to retire the racing drivers' license for two or three races.

[ljakse]

Knowlesy, I am one of those same fools - I believe that "always giving that little bit of room , not much, but just enough" should be written in bold and capital letters in FIA sporting regs, but we seem to be irrelevant minority.

Originally posted by Gt_R
Come punishment time... What are the options available to FIA? Fine? MS/Ferrari is paid so much a hefty fine won't make too much a difference.

So what??

Originally posted by Gt_R
Ban? Sure it's going to hurt MS/Ferrari, but would we want a WDC the following year "just because" MS was banned for 3 races for an incident the PREVIOUS year?

Not 3 races – the whole year should have been a minimum – that would be the only way to prevent any other hot head trying to do the same in the future.

Originally posted by Gt_R
Road Safety campaign? It doesn't hurt much perhaps, but surely a slap on the hand and at least it contributes to the community.

A slap on the hand???? Yes, to any idealistic fool that thought wheel-to-wheel racing without ramming the other guy out is the way to go. Actually, it was more of a slap in the face.

Originally posted by Gt_R
Anyway, it won't change anybody's mind so really we can argue to our deaths and still remain the same.

Sure, but some things have to be said, right?

[hamsmith]

Originally posted by knowlesy


It's all a contrast to the old days. I watched the full 1979 season recently (courtesy of Jay! Cheers mate! )and the racing is totally fair. Hard, hard racers like Gilles Villeneuve and Alan Jones going at it hammer and tongs but always giving that little bit of room , not much, but just enough. Exciting to watch, enormously fun and competitive, full of respect and above all fair and sporting.

To be fair the common courtesy show to each other on the track in the G Villeneuve/Alan Jones days was proberly more to with the fact that the concequences were higher as we know.In the current F1 we all watch and love the most that can happen if a car is driven off the track is a bounce of the tyre wall. Not so in the days of Gilles.

[ralf fan]

How was what MS did different from what Senna and Prost did in 89 and 90? and both those times the two of them benefitted by knocking each other out PURPSELY ie winning the championship
atleast MS didnt win the WDC by knocking JV..(he could have but didnt) indeed it was disgraceful (i hate racing like that plain cheating)
but were Senna and Prost banned from the start of the next year? NO!

Originally posted by knowlesy


The FIA missed its chance to stamp down on bad behaviour that day I feel. If a ban had been dished out to Michael for the beginning of 1998, I feel we would see fairer tactics.

the FIA had a chance to stamp its authority by giving bans to Senna or Prost! they didnt so why should MS always be made an example of? he served his punishment... there was 80 odd pts taken from his total which wasnt the case with Senna or Prost... infact they got to celebrate a WDC.. (hey and i love Ayrton Senna!!)

by no means am i an MS fan nor do i support what he did...

[Morris 1100]

A fair punishment would have been if Michael was given five years...










in a Minardi!

[DriverT]

Originally posted by Svend
I think it is just disgusting as even some racing drivers try to justify for example the move Michael made on Juan in Imola.

There was nothing wrong with it!

[Gt_R]

Quite:"Actually, it was more of a slap in the face."

Yeah, it was a slap on the face for MS. I mean, to us we can say "so what, community service won't hurt..", but it is kind of "parading the guilty" and a slap on the face. Meant more than a fine IMO. Same thing applies to the stripping of 2nd in WDC...to some it may mean nothing, but again, it's a slap on the face on MS.

Anyway, i'd clarify that i'm not defending dirty driving. Safety is important, and the deliberate action of putting your fellow competitors' life AT RISK is not acceptable.

Everyone accepted the fact that Jerez 97 is primarily MS's fault. The punishment that follows is really something hard to balance. On one hand, MS must be appropriately punished - and that i mean not under nor over-punished. On the other, the competition shouldn't be diminished and fans shouldn't be punished (imagine a lesser 98 championship fight). It's easy to just implement tons of punishment on a driver you dislike WITHOUT thinking of fairness and consequences.

Anyway, i get tired of people who insist MS introduced bad driving to the new drivers (ie Webber), and started an era of bad driving ethics...remember the "era" MS grew up from...it's the era of watching/learning/being influenced from greats like Senna/Prosts/etc.

Quote:"FIA missed its chance to stamp down on bad behaviour that day I feel."

FIA didn't miss it's chance to stamp down on bad behavoir, they missed it when they weren't strict with the previous generation of drivers (Prost/Senna), and even before. MS didn't "introduce" bad driving... MS was influenced from the previous generations, just like Webber was influenced by MS (i'm not saying MS is 100% innocent, just the blame is exaggerated). It's something continuous, and FIA merely didn't mangage to completely break the chain after Jerez 97.

Again, i hope that those MS-critics don't think they are the only ones who wish for "fair racing", just because others define things differently from you.

Fair driving is something everyone wished for in a perfect world, and theoretically easy. Not so when you are in the car, in the hot seat. And while i agree with everyone Fair Racing and Clean Driving are IMPORTANT issues that future generation MUST take on, i would like to point out that critics have to be fair and not "draw MS's a higher line with less tolerant limits" than the competitors...

[Adam43]

The intricacies of the JPM move on MS at Imola 2004 can be found here http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...041#post959041 (now on p11 ).

I don't think 1997 made any difference to the driving stadards that had been around for the last few years.

A missed oportunity, yes. As Gt_R has said so were previous examples (Portugal, Senna/Prost for example), but that doesn't mean Jerez wasn't a missed opportunity. ANd it doesn't mean nowadays there aren't missed oportunities. However I'm not sure bans from subsequent GP are what I would want.

Also talking generally bad driving has always been around. Even in the world championship we can start with Farina and move forward. There had been late chops, dubious racing lines and brake testing even before people talked of the silly 'single move' rule.

However I do find the current trend of a 'single move' late on a straight very ugly (and just hte easy option). Drivers should go into corners side by side and give each other room. It's not diffucult, well it is, but these are the best drivers in the world! It is quite often that the defending driver would 'get' the next corner by having the desired line out of the previous corner (even if the other driver is alongside). The only time I can remember this happening recently is with JPM and Kimi at Hockenhiem (not that it happened every lap in the good old days).

The FIA's lack of action: In the old days there was no (very little) action against the drivers, but they didn't need as much action! It is a shame this has changed. Perhaps they need to do womething, but the action they do take at the moment gives the impression of being ill-thought.

[Gt_R]

Sorry AA, i think it would be more appropriate to say "Jerez wasn't THE ONLY missed opportunity."

Basically i agree with you. The "blame" MS had to endure from the critics for any bad driving now is blown out of proportion, and everything he do, as innocent as it is, always hear cries of "foul" and "jerez97" again. Which isn't exactly fair.

Pardon me, but i always felt "giving room" is a thoery that is good only when BOTH drivers compete "fairly" and not run their opponents OFF the track deliberately when fighting a lost cause (ie almost being overtaken/lost the advantage of the corner/line/position). But it can't be demanded or expected when the overtaking-driver makes a lousy/ill-thought attempt and demand the driver in front to make way and "give room"... (don't know if i got the point out clearly). (ie, if a driver from very very far back tries a desperate move and makes an attempt from very far back, we can't expect the driver in front to take evasive or unnatural action just to accomodate the badly executed move from behind).

[Adam43]

Agreed, you can't just let drivers go for kamikazee moves. However a lot of these can be defeated while giving htem room. Overall I agree though.

I do think that defenders are too quick to class any attempt as ill judged though.

[NiceGuyEddie]

This complaint surely is getting very old, isn´t? The most recent JPM/MS incident is the base for a long, hard discussion in which the majority seems to be content with the point of view that no one is to blame and that the incident certainly doesn´t justify all the fuss. Could MS leave room? Perhaps? Did JPM leave enough room in Hockenheim 2003? Perhaps not.

The thing is, this is racing and when two or more cars are fighting over the same spot of asfalt, the chances of them hitting eachother one way or the other, are pretty big. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but useless in terms of F1 racing. The drivers are only in it for the present. They must act and react in a split second without being able to judge a situation completely an thoroughly. No one is to blame for that. It´s purely in the nature of the sport. In this light I believe we don´t have very much of those incidents, in fact, we have very little, but when you keep blowing them out of proportion, well...

Yesterday in DTM, Albers was under heavy attack from Ekstrom. Ekstrom tried to squeeze his Audi past but Albers let his Mercedes swerve to the left, causing Ekstrom to leave the track. Albers kept his line, so Ekstrom had no chance than to abort the attack and rejoin the track behind Albers, rather than along the left side of Albers´ Mercedes . What Albers did was -at best- questionable. Should Albers granted Ekstrom a cars-width of asfaltspace? Perhaps, but when Albers would´ve done so, it would´ve certainly cost him the lead (and the racewin). Who´s to blame here? Albers for defending too hard or Ekstrom for trying to undertake a risky overtakingmanouvre when he should´ve and could´ve known that Albers wasn´t giving up easily?

I would say: back off from determining who´s fault it is. Just accept that in racing overtaking is an act of war. It´s about attacking and defending, and the fact that it leads to damage is nothing short of being a part of racing, a part of the duelling which we all crave to see. If the FIA get´s too stringent on drivermanners, than what driver is going to risk an ever so slightly optimistic overtakingmanouvre? What will be left will be manouvres from the book. A faster car outbreaking a slower car after a long straight, into a slow- or mediumcorner. That equals boring.

I can´t believe that people on one hand want to see ontrack duelling, yet on the other hand fail to accept that duelling and damage can go hand in hand, thus obsessively try to determin who to blame for the occured damage. Just leave all those complaints for the brutal displays of deliberate actions with no other goal than to take the other guy out (indeed, like Jerez 1997), but leave racingincidents such as JPM/MS Imola 2004, JPM/MS Brazil 2003, JPM/MS Hockenheim 2003, Alonso/Ralf Imola 2004 etc. etc. alone. And then it turns out, that all the fuss was indeed for nothing. Only Jerez 1997 comes into play, and MS was actually punished for that one. Not severly enough? Perhaps, but that is a different matter all together.

Now, shut up and enjoy the sport and one an ontrackduel is coming on, just watch it and enjoy it. It´s not that we have so much of them to enjoy.

[Mattracer]

I don't know how 1990 can be mentioned without it's natural predecessor, 1989...

[dcp2685]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Anyway, just curious..but how do you think MS should be punished???

I think he should at least have a drive through or stop and go penalty thrown on him. Ralf as well for his mad driving...not to mention the double defending move he did on Alonso prior to Ralf getting passed.

What webber did to Alonso could be considered boarderline but they didn't hit and/or touch. Just good hard agressive racing.

And not to mention that IMO what Montoya did to Rubens last year at the US where he actually got a drive through, was not any difference to what MS did to Montoya. If anything the MS/Montoya thing was certainly deliberate while the Montoya/Rubens was much more of a racing incident.

But the penalties or lack of should not be a one way stream.

[Gt_R]

NiceGuyEddie.. i agreee with ya.

Eerrr dcp..i meant "how should MS be punished" to satisfy the thirst of the critics for 97. Imola's in another thread And in case it escaped your notice, FIA relented and that racing incidents will be investigated after the race instead of a drive-through, a policy championed by one pablo montoya.
And "certainly deliberate" huh...

[Adam43]

I think Gt_R meant for Jerez.

And one thing this does show is there are many different kinds of incidents and in a lot it is difficult to know where to draw the line.

Still perhaps a line should be drawn?

[Liz]

Nothing will change until Michael's move actually causes death to another driver. Then the FIA will wring its hands and whine, "Where did we go wrong?" like the parents in the courtroom where their fair haired child sits accused of murder after a lifetime of being saved from the consequences of his actions.

I am not saying this punishment ought to be reserved for him; ANYBODY who rams another driver off the track deliberately ought to be impressed with the fact that what he has done is in face attempted premediated murder. If he is so hardened that his ethical sense (and his personal toadies) prevent him from realizing this on his own, he ought to be banned from enough races to make an impression on him, however many that may take.

For those who would put a World Driving Championship ahead of another man's life, I wonder how you would have felt if Michael had in factprevailed, and Jacques ended up permanently paralyzed or dead and Michael had "won" the championship. Do you really think that the end would have justified the means, even to Ferrari? Or would you have just shrugged and said, "Well, that's racing -- Jacques has enough money to hire people to care for him for the rest of his life and Ferrari HAD to win a championship ... "

Subsequent events have shown that no matter what outrage he commits, Michael will not be punished, so it's unnecessary to discuss it any further until he does account for someone's death.

[Panzer]

Prost, no penalty. Senna, no penalty. Schumacher penalty, soft or not, it doesn't realy matter. Your all talking about three of the greatest drivers of all time. How many Championships between them? 13 is it! So what does this tell you all. Come on think now.
All three have done the unthinkable, to try to win a Championship.
Three great Champions. What does it take to become a great Champion? How any of us can sit in judgement is beyond me.
None of us mortals will ever know what it is like to make that split second decision to drive in to another competitor to save a world Championship.
They were all ruthless drivers, thats what it takes to win a Championship these days.
None of us know what pressure is! None of us have the drive and determination, or the talent,or the BALLS to do what these men do. I'm sick to death of all the Michael Schumacher bashing. Senna and Prost never got the type of bashing that MS gets. Why?
We are lucky to live in a time when we can watch history happening every fortnite, Schumacher and Rossi.
Enjoy it.

[Knowlesy]

originally posted by ralf fan
How was what MS did different from what Senna and Prost did in 89 and 90? and both those times the two of them benefitted by knocking each other out PURPSELY ie winning the championship

I gave consideration to 1989 and 1990, but I'm leaving this to the Mosley era to be honest. A change of leader from Balestre to Mosley perhaps made people feel they were free to push the behavioural boundaries again, test out the governing body to the limit, see what they could get away with. I'm probably wrong to think that, but it is a possibility I guess. So Jerez 1997 was a chance for the CURRENT governing body to make a stance!

originally posted by hamsmith
To be fair the common courtesy show to each other on the track in the G Villeneuve/Alan Jones days was proberly more to with the fact that the concequences were higher as we know.In the current F1 we all watch and love the most that can happen if a car is driven off the track is a bounce of the tyre wall. Not so in the days of Gilles.

True....but they could have still had a go if they wanted to. What about Andretti and Hunt at Zandvoort? They collided at Tarzan, a slower speed corner of the day, through one guys refusal to give way and both were out. Not saying this was a purposeful move at all, but it shows that someone could have tried something devious at a corner like that where you could collide and get away in one piece. But generally you're right, the cars are a lot safer these days which makes it an easier decision to do something bad and it just comes down totally to a drivers ethics nowadays.

originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
The thing is, this is racing and when two or more cars are fighting over the same spot of asfalt, the chances of them hitting each other one way or the other, are pretty big.

Yes, there is a fair chance people may collide in this situation.....but are you stating that it is OK for people to purposely hit each other just because the chances of an accidental hit are high? Hmmm......

originally posted by Liz
For those who would put a World Driving Championship ahead of another man's life, I wonder how you would have felt if Michael had in factprevailed, and Jacques ended up permanently paralyzed or dead and Michael had "won" the championship. Do you really think that the end would have justified the means, even to Ferrari?

This is why I thought Michael would recieve a ban for part of 1998 for a time. While it may seem slightly hysterical to suggest Jacques could have been killed in that particular collision (such was its speed) he could have been hurt had it been on another part of the track. You have to assume if Jacques had tried the move on a high speed part of the track (rather than the slow speed Dry Sack hairpin), Michael would have done the same. Then we may have seen a catastrophy.

Therefore, he should have got a periodic ban to illustrate that the governing body values its participants well being above an exciting championship (which 1998 ultimately turned out to be!).

Instead we are vulnerable to similar incidents occurring, and that's sad.

[NiceGuyEddie]

From Liz:
Nothing will change until Michael's move actually causes death to another driver.

Now, when was the last time a deliberate move could´ve cause the ´victimdriver´ injuries, severe injuries or even death? Should we go all the way back to Ronnie Peterson and Ricardo Patrese? Should we impose criminal charges rather then to suffice with a sanction from the sporting government. I think so. The act which leads to injuries or even death for which act another driver can be held accountable for, should be a matter of criminal law, not of the sportingrules. That would be way beyond sport.

But lets be realistic. When has it ever happened in recent history (or the Schumacher-era if you please) that his has come into play? The most controversial moves Schumacher has made are Adelaide 1994 and Jerez 1997. Both in trying to protect a claim on the worldtitel. One time succesful, one time not succesful. At least in Jerez MS went beyond the sporting rules and was punished accordingly, but was the move of such a nature that criminal charges would be in place? I think not and I can´t -in all honesty- see why anone would think otherwise. It was racing, and it wasn´t fair, but it still was racing.

What is the point of racing when we start blaming drivers for doing just that: racing?

[Adam43]

I resisted the temptation to mention this before (because it is off topic), but I don't understand this Prost thing. He was one of the cleanest racers there has ever been. I presume we are talking about Suzuka '89, but did Prost do anything wrong? If he did then practically all lunges should be followed by a 'after you sir'.

And a general comment: A discussion like this is only going to work if we keep things in perspective.

[Gt_R]

Firstly, to say MS deliberately rams and is a time bomb waiting to claim lives is a little on the dramatic side. Yeah..JV will flip 10 times, fly to mars and explode..is that it? The move is wrong no doubt, but to over exaggerate as if MS is a killer on the loose... I guess MS should be charged for "attempted murder" instead of disqualification, right?

And nobody said Ferrari/MS/fans value the WDC more than the lives of the competitor. And frankly, did MS "RAM" another driver DELIBERATELY since then?