Drivers react to ‘Crashgate’ at scene of crime
September 25, 2009 by SJ Skid
Filed under F1B Op-Ed, People & Events, SJ Skid
There’s no getting around the fact that the Renault race-fixing incident from last year is going to dominate media coverage this weekend, given F1 is back where the Piquet crash took place.
I know folks in the Forum and here on the “front page” are pretty sick of the story and how badly it reflects on the sport, but I have good news for you: So are the drivers.
They are being quizzed about it pretty relentless (including, of course, Fernando Alonso, which has generated some lively discussion in this post).
The BBC has a pretty good wrap-up of the drivers and others’ feelings, along with some comments about how the drivers pretty well have to steer clear of saying anything too pointed.
Here are some excerpts:
“It’s not (just) another scandal,” insisted BMW Sauber boss Mario Theissen. “It’s serious. F1 has a good chance to become even stronger but only if all this comes to an end now.”
[snip]
“I’m running out of patience sticking up for this sport,” sighed Red Bull driver Mark Webber. “I’m sure other people are as well.
Even if some questions remain unanswered, F1 is not in the habit of dwelling on the past for too long
“This stuff goes on and on and what can we do? We are fans of the sport, we want it to be taken seriously like most sports but at the moment we are off the back of a poor example and we’re not proud of it.”
[snip]
When asked for their views in the drivers’ media conference, Hamilton, Ferrari driver Kimi Raikkonen and Nico Rosberg of Williams were reluctant to say anything – as people often are when it comes to giving a verdict on the minefield of F1′s political issues.
“It’s not really our job to comment on it,” said Hamilton, neatly skirting the issue, despite it being suggested to him that, as world champion, he had a responsibility to speak in defence of the sport.
It was left to BMW Sauber driver Robert Kubica to raise questions that others dared not; in particular a concern that the FIA knew about the plot last year but failed to act.
“The circumstances [of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix] were strange at the time,” the Pole said.
“The thing I’m surprised about is that if someone from the FIA knew about it last year and had some information on it why didn’t they do something then?
“If you want to race in Formula 1 you have to accept that sometimes it is drifting a bit from the ideal view of F1 – that is how it is.”
Finally, I think Alonso has to be highlighted separately since he is — like it or not, fair or not — the man of the hour.
One man in particular was keener than most to put the events of last year’s race behind him.
“It’s last week, the past, it is behind us and we move on,” insisted Alonso, who warned the media melee he would stop answering questions in English if he was asked again about the events of 2008.
“It is clear that I was not involved in the accident. It has been difficult times for the team but it is settled and it is in the past for us.”
That description of the scene certainly makes me feel more sympathy for Alonso, who I’m sure wants to get this incident behind him so he can focus on the race. [And he did well in practice, the times from which I'll post shortly if Todd hasn't already.] No one wants to be caught in a “media melee.” I’m been interviewed a few times, and done countless interviews as the journalist, and I’m not comfortable being on the wrong side of a mic or pad and pen.
My question for everyone, to change the dialogue away from “Crashgate” itself, is: What do you think of the media’s focus on this story? In your heart of hearts, do you really not want to read more about it and get more F1 reaction? Or are the media focusing too much on a story that is over and done with at this point?
My answer, in part, is that F1 keeps bringing this coverage on itself, whether through Bernie’s statements, Max’s actions or any of the various “-gates” we keep suffering through on an all-too-frequent basis. And I wouldn’t mind a race weekend dominated by stories about aero upgrades, engine worries and other such topics. Perhaps the most political we could have is coverage of just how fair the battle within Brawn will be.
I can dream, anyway.
Loading ...
Given how pathetic the FIA’s non-punishment was, and how cowardly they were in refusing to put Renault personnel in the press conference, the media at the scene are 100% correct in pushing the story. The FIA are letting Renault get away with it, and it’s frankly disgraceful.
Mere hours after Alonso was telling the press that it was all over and it was in the past, came word that two of Renault’s biggest sponsors were ditching them over the scandal. A pretty clear example of why the culprits aren’t the one to set the news agenda.
On a wider point, it’s best that stories like this are given too much exposure than too little.
I would agree with the point Keith. I think Renault’s desire to put this behind them, sweep it under the rug and move on is something that creates press confrontations with drivers and anyone else who will talk.
If you listen to the mea culpa from the audio recording of the FIA’s WMSC meeting; you see an apologetic and open Renault about their involvement. As far as the FIA, Renault, Bernie, Piquet and Alonso are concerned; it’s old news let’s move on but as fans and certainly media goes, there are some rough edges to the inquiry and questions that remain. I have a hard time leveling the blame at the media for this as it is natural to want to get the rough-edged stories worked out.
you are correct in saying that Renault could have placed team management at the press conference and made themselves available to the press instead of shoving Alonso up there to take, what the teams surely knew, would be a host of verdict-follow-up-questions.
I think the story is too big, punishment too small, immunity too liberal for the fans liking and the press is reacting to that. The machine that is F1 is attempting to bury the story but it is they themselves that brought it to the light of day. There is not putting the genie back in the bottle now. good points Keith.
Look at the evidence. Crashgate is isolated to three individuals plus one unnamed witness. The witness and one of the individuals (Piquet) were given immunity for testifying. The other two (Briatore and Symonds) were excluded from the championship.
The race crew and workers at the Renault F1 factory benefitted but are innocent of involvement in the scandal. Just how is the FIA considered “pathetic” when they chose to not apply an extremely harsh penalty to innocent players in this scandal?
When it is possible to isolate illegal activity to specific individuals, the just thing to do is severely punish the individuals. When it is possible to identify those who are innocent, although they may have unwittingly benefitted from the devious act, the just thing to do is apply penalties in a way that ultimately spares them.
The modern media world is partly responsible for keeping this story in the news, but the F1 people are also largely to blame.
For example in the weeks between the charges being made and the WMSC hearing, there were multiple leaks of documents, which almost certainly came from the FIA side. Every leak helped keep the story in the headlines. This weekend Bernie said he thought Flav should appeal the verdict. Bernie is entitled to his opinion, but by saying this to the media he generated yet another story in the press.
The media will always go into a feeding frenzy when they’re given a morsel of scandal, but it’s F1′s fault for continually giving them those morsels.
I think Mark Webber’s comment in your piece about “running out of patience” sums up how many people in the pitlane, the grandstands and on the sofas feel about the sport right now.
This so called “crashgate” has brought again serious questions about the real value of the F1 as a sport. IMO this blitzy world of racing is isolating itself from the core values a sport must stand for. It looks more like a show test in progress, experimenting with regulations and enforcement that often times have shown no consistency at all and a big deal of race result fixing by the steward themselves.
When you contrast spygate and crashgate scandals it seems that the FIA/WMSC have a political agenda, giving rise to non-consistent verdicts. Because McLaren was able to survise a multi-million fine, the FIA got their money; with Renault they said the team was guilty of race fixing but the way the FIA managed the information for almost a year makes it a weak case to prosecute in a civil court…and yet, they got rid of Flav for not clear reasons. It seems that Renault could not be able to survive similar fine and as a consequence a suspended ban was “granted” even though they acknowledge the charges and they did not put any argument to defend themselves.
If someone in the future -let’s say 50-60 years- analyzes the current F1 world he/she may say that this was a period of transition, of power struggle that started with Jean Marie Balestre and ended when the founders of the moderns F1 teams left the sport…. at least there’s hope to see if by 2010 things will feel, look, and why not, smell a little bit better
The one thing that might explain the difference between the McLaren and Renault verdicts is the evidence. For McLaren, the evidence showed that the illegal activity permeated throughout the organization. This is pretty clear. So the penalty was applied to the entire team.
For Renault the evidence showed the illegal activity was carried out specifically by only three individuals, not the entire organization. One was given immunity for testimony and the other two were expelled from F1. Unless there is evidence no one in the public has been allowed to see, the organization was not involved–it was only three individuals. Considering this, the verdict is actually fair.
Yeah, I also believe politics influenced the way the cases were handled. However, it is important to remember than in the insulated confines of adjudicating a verdict, only the evidence can be considered, not hunches about who was or was not involved and/or how much.