What would you have thought of DC had he ignored team orders at Melbourne 1998?

[Yoong Montoya]

I myself believe that McLaren and DC were lying about the gentlemens agreement at Melbourne 1998, but that's another story.

But anyway, what would your opinion have been had DC ignored team calls and taken the Australia 1998 win for himself? Would you have supported him or bashed him?

[Kicking-back]

I don't think we'd ever have known about it.

Mika wouldn't have ruffled feathers by saying anything and Ron would've kept any disharmony within the team.

[Liz]

I'd have though "I won!"

As it is, I was one of those who mailed my betting slip to DC.

[Damon]

I'd have had far more respect for him. But the fact that he did it at all suggests to me that it was his decision and the team had nothing to do with it.

[f1manoz]

If he had ignored it, we wouldn't have heard anything about it.

[GTRMagic]

No but I doubt his contract would have been renewed

[jetsetter]

I don't think that we would've heard about it but i don't think that Coulthard would be driving for McLaren today.

[Irv the Swerve]

Originally posted by Liz
I'd have though "I won!"

As it is, I was one of those who mailed my betting slip to DC.

I've never understood that line of reasoning. In terms of a sporting contest with an agreed result or outcome, those mailing the betting slips don't have any sort of case. The result is ratified, it is diferent to what you have tried to predict for money, therefore you lose.

Citing the result as a fix, or as any kind of a contrived result outside of the rules would require some burden of proof. DC acted within the rules at all times and has no obligation to satisfy the whinges of those who lost money on a sporting event. It was a decision that he made based around a human weakness for fair play. Hakkinen fans could easily send their betting slips to him and say 'you idiot, why didn't you use your ears more efficiently' or some other such...based around the human weakness of infallibility.

[Adam43]

A nice slant on it YM, better than the easy bash.

Personally I respect him for making that decision. He could have taken the win, with no recrimination from team, Mika, F1 folk or outsiders. However he saw it was just a stupid mix-up and let Mika back into the lead he previously had easily. Racing is not often fair, but on that day David made it fair. And with sacrifice to himself. Good on him, I say. You can use this as an example of how he isn't ruthless enough and I suppose it is, but since when has ruthlessness been a redeeming characteristic (even if it can be an advantageous one)?

[Wrex]

Agreed Adam. I think more of him for pulling over than not. F1 is a team sport, and none team players should be looking for a new game to play (are you listening JV).

But then I'm one of 'those' people that agrees with team orders.

[RWC]

He wouldn't have had a loooong free ride at maclaren for a start!

[Hazza]

I allways felt if I was DC, I'd move over...

But i've constantly run this through my head, if I was Mika Salo there is no way I would've let Irvine through, even if me being infront was due to chance (Am I correct?).

Its easy to sit here and be all namby pamby and think that If my team mate beat me in the final round because he was faster and I didn't win the championship, you could say I didn't deserve it.

But i'm not a formula one driver, so who knows.

[Phoenix1]

As i stated here

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...threadid=48615

DC and MH had a gentlemans agreement - everyone seems to side with Villenuve when Pironi over took him and one because GV died a week after. Pironi was unsportman like as Ferrari, GV and Pironi had agreed not to fight if in a one-two formation so would it also not be unprofessional to go back on a gentlemans agreement in the case of DC? They where in the same team and as far as the team is concerned they had 16 points when DC lead and 16 when MH lead so their intreast was zero basically. I'd like to know therefor those of you who condone DC also feel GV was unjustified in his compliant and angry which some see as leading to his death.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by jetsetter
I don't think that we would've heard about it but i don't think that Coulthard would be driving for McLaren today.

May not be this time next year either.

Looked like an honourable thing to do at the time but moving over for someone? It's kind of like a robber asking how his gun should be loaded.

[deeks6]

The history of motorsport is literally crammed with episodes of "team orders" in every category so who really cares? The "Anti-Schumi's" make a far bigger deal of his than the McLaren episode but, then again, who in their right mind is going to suggest that Barrichello is faster than Schumacher or that DC was faster than Hakkinen?

[Gt_R]

Funny though while people condemn drivers for fixing the race at the last lap of a race (ie Austria 02), they were all gracious to accept drivers fixing the race at the first lap of a race (Melbourne 98)... just my penny's worth.

[Armco Bender]

They fix motor races........ ,Never,next thing you'll be telling me the WWF is fake and that athletes take drugs.

[climb]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Funny though while people condemn drivers for fixing the race at the last lap of a race (ie Austria 02), they were all gracious to accept drivers fixing the race at the first lap of a race (Melbourne 98)... just my penny's worth.

Agree with you Gt_R,
distinctions between "Team orders" or "gentlemen's agreements" are pure excercise of empty cogitations.
The only relevant thing is that the natural course of a race is faked and distorted.
Judgemnts changing depending on who's involved (bashing ferrari, and absolving DC/Macs) is just related to how biased are we.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by RWC
He wouldn't have had a loooong free ride at maclaren for a start!

I'm not sure about that. I think if he'd stayed ahead and won it would have been the same. After all if was his choice. I don't think it would have made much difference to what McLaren thought of him.

Hmmm. Well I don't think he'd have been thought of badly for getting the win by McLaren. Although possibly in the term such a generous nice gesture was rated highly.

[Teretonga]

This was the second time in two races DC had moved over for Mika (also Jerez '97). Jerez was definitely a team (RD) order to give Mika his first win. Then Melbourne was the result of a mix up for Mika... but it set the scene within the team and DC has never really fulfilled the promise of those early years (he was frequently faster than Mika in 96). Something happened in those two races and i don't really think we have seen the best of DC since despite some great drives.
I'd still have repected him if he hadn't moved over, I agree that the gentlemans agreement may not be true but we'll never probably know the real truth anyway.

[BootsOntheSide]

Mika was getting over an accident which nearly killed him in 1996, which explains DC's extra pace. And Mika had overtaken him for form by 1997 - in the second half of that season he was ahead of DC in virtually every race.

I believe this was a gentleman's agreement, as both Mika and DC seem like the types to arrange such a thing. Also, if Mika had lost the lead through his own mistake, David may not have been so keen to move over.

In general Barrichello isn't as fast as Michael, but in Austria he consistantly has been quicker, and that weekend he was dominant. That was the major ethical difference between the two situations.

[Gt_R]

Let's just apply some extra thinking..

Mika & DC had an agreement in the first race of the season by the first corner to decide the race...it's acceptable and praised for "gentleman"ly. The team implied team orders to correct their mistake, it's acceptable.

Yet, people find it too hard to understand that Ferrari and their drivers came to the understanding at the start of the season that in the course of the championship, the driver who lags behind another in the points after the season got underway would support the other in the quest for driver's championship.

The only difference is that while Mclaren planned for that race, Ferrari planned for the championship. Yes, in terms of points, it is possible, but 44-6 in Michael's favour, i remind us.

Back to the topic, i have no problem if DC decided to ignore team orders in Mel98. But i won't have a problem if DC played ball and give Mika back his rightful place. It's fair Mika wins the race. There's no obligation by DC, but i am pleased he chose what he did. And i do pity GV.

However, any driver who can actually decide the race win by the first corner must be naive. Heck...why bother to run 70 laps when we only need 1 to decide the winner?

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Gt_R
There's no obligation by DC, but i am pleased he chose what he did.

me too

Originally posted by Gt_R
However, any driver who can actually decide the race win by the first corner must be naive. Heck...why bother to run 70 laps when we only need 1 to decide the winner?

That I agree with too, although I consider it a reflection on F1 generally.

[darcym]

I'll stick my 2 cents worth in.

Team order or not Coulthard played the team game and came out looking like a true gent
To this day I have never heard him complain or regret his move.
Coulthard was far from being a nancy at spa 99 when he took Hakienen out for second place. I think this shows that Coulthard had a fair crack of the whip at Mclaren.
Team orders are a part of F1 fact, I have no problem that ferrari or co use them infact I have respect for Ferrari for using them, they came out at the start of the year and said "Rubens, you'll be ssecond from now on, if you don't like it don't sign" and they have publicly said we'll use team orders to make sure we win.
Ron on the other hand has said "no team orders" and I believe him %90 of the way. An interesting fact is 1997 Spain, Ron and Frank made an agreement in the middle of the race, where Ron NEEDED to win (not won for ages and had a new sponsor (west) and Frank needed the WDC from JV. The deal was DC/Mika would NOT pressure JV (look how easy he let them into first) if Frank let them win in a 1 - 2 formation. If this isn't team orders to the biggest degree (2 teams working together to make sure of a result) I don't know what is.

All this in mind I think DC made a good call, and it did his stock more good than harm. He proved he could drive fast, race hard, and drive for the good of the team as well as himself. It is the things that happened in 2000+ that have made his stock fall.

[climb]

Originally posted by Gt_R
...
There's no obligation by DC, but i am pleased he chose what he did..

Respect your opinion, but I'm convinced that, if DC had done differently, the whole championship would have been way more interesting than it proved actually.