Ferrari says it chose to manipulate the outcome of the Austrian GP in a way that would show Rubens Barrichello as the “moral victor”. Ferari boss Jean Todt and technical director Ross Brawn, say the team could have manipulated the drivers’ pit strategies to give Michael Schumacher the win, but chose not to do so.
Ferrari says it chose to manipulate the outcome of the Austrian Grand Prix in a way that would show Rubens Barrichello as the “moral victor”.
According to team boss Jean Todt and technical director Ross Brawn, Ferrari could have manipulated the drivers’ pit strategies to give Michael Schumacher the win, but deliberately chose not to do so.
Despite the negative publicity from all over the globe due to the controversial decision, Brawn told reporters on Monday that he did not feel the sport had been damaged by this decision. ”I can understand the public’s reaction up to a certain point, but the race result did not take away anything away from Rubens’ performance, as he ran a fantastic race.
“People have to understand that Ferrari’s main aim is to win both championships. I can see that some people might find that hard to grasp, but that is the reasoning behind what happened. The FIA knows that Formula One is a team sport and accepts that, as can be seen from the fact that team orders have always been part of motorsport.”
Brawn also said it was a pity that Ferrari’s policy of transparency about employing team orders had not been appreciated by outraged F1 fans. He further stressed that Schumacher had played no role in making the decision about the tactic.
"We could have called Rubens in for a pit stop, which was not strictly necessary, but we chose to act honestly, so that everyone could see this was Rubens’ race and that he handed victory to Michael, simply for the points involved.
Michael rates Rubens and, even for him, it was difficult to see his team-mate having to accept this sort of decision. He definitely did not ask for ithe race to be given to him, but he doesn’t run the team."
Todt said it would have been unwise for Ferrari to allow its drivers to challenge each other given the dominance the Scuderia had shown at the A1-Ring.
"It’s always a difficult decision to take, to change the finishing order, it’s not something you do all the time. At the moment, we are enjoying a favourable period. Today, we did not allow our drivers to fight. It is hard for me to say, but we were much quicker on the track today, so there was no point in allowing our drivers to fight each other, because we might have given the game away to the others. We cannot be certain, with 11 races to go to the end of the championship, that the situation will remain like that, so we are trying to take the maximum at this stage," Todt said.
The Frenchman also explained that Ferrari’s decision to blatantly change the order at the end of the race was deliberate.
“It would have been unfair to ask Rubens to simulate being overtaken – something which we could easily have organised. It would have been enough to put 10 more kilos of fuel in Rubens’ car and Michael could have passed him in the pitstop, which we did not do,” he said.
“It was symbolic that Rubens was the moral winner. Ten points went to Michael but, morally, Rubens is the winner, as was the case when Mika Salo allowed Eddie Irvine to win in 1999, and when Michael, after his accident at Silverstone, let Irvine past (in Malaysia). So it isn’t something that has never happened before. Rubens understood, and he was very professional. We have just renewed the contract with Rubens, with a clear situation and clear understanding, and Rubens understands that."
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo said he agreed with Todt and Brawn’s decision “100 per cent”, but still felt sorry for Barrichello. He refused, however, to admit that he gave the team the go-ahead to execute the tactic – something Schumacher had hinted at in his post-race interview on Sunday.
"I am sorry for Barrichello, who was great for the whole weekend and deserved to win. Sometimes, however, one has to act by letting the head rule the heart. While, with a few laps to go, I was instinctively happy for Rubens to win, 10 seconds after the chequered flag I said to myself, ‘yes, that was the right decision.’
"I want to make it clear that this was a decision which I agree with a hundred per cent,” he said.
“When I was Sporting Director in 1975, I imposed team orders on our drivers. In Monaco, I told Regazzoni to let Lauda pass, as he was quicker and could win the race. In subsequent years, on several occasions we asked our drivers to act for the good of the team. I am thinking of Hockenheim and Sepang in 1999, when Irvine picked up two wins which kept him in contention for the world championship thanks to the collaboration first of Mika Salo and then of Michael Schumacher.
“On top of that, it does not seem to me that other teams have behaved differently in the past. One only has to recall the 1998 Australian Grand Prix when Coulthard let Hakkinen pass. Not to mention Jerez in 1997, when what happened was an agreement between two teams, Williams and McLaren to let the Finn take his first grand prix win," he added.
