A Comment on the Schumacher incident

The following is an article by Steve Turnbull for updatef1.com. The link is http://formula-1.updatesport.com/magazine/article/Comment--The-Schumacher-Incident/1148908415.html
I am posting the entire (presumably copyrighted) article here for the benefit of those readers who are behind corporate firewalls which block such sites.



The Monaco Grand Prix, as is often the case, provided one of the more captivating races of the season so far. The duel around the twisting, heavily contoured streets of Monte Carlo proved exciting and unpredictable, as Fernando Alonso, Kimi Raikkonen and Mark Webber all displayed the talent that has enabled them to reach the very top echelon of world motor sport.

Yet, for all the on track interest, the race was far from the major talking point of the weekend; that accolade went, as again is often the case, to the antics of one Michael Schumacher, whose last second manoeuvre at the Rascasse during Saturday qualifying brought the sport of Formula One back to the mainstream news, and not in the fashion we would like it to be.

Michael Schumacher and Controversy (the capital is deliberate) need no introduction to each other. It is as if the brilliant German arrived in Formula One, all those years ago at Spa Francorchamps in 1991, carrying ample supplies in his briefcase.

Indeed that very debut was littered with the stuff: Bertrand Gachot was in jail, courtesy of a disagreement involving the Belgian Jordan driver, a London taxi driver, and a can of CS gas. Michael arrived with good references, and a healthy dose of Mercedes-Benz money for Eddie Jordan’s young team, on the back of assurances that he knew Spa like the back of his hand. In fact, he had never seen the place, let alone driven there. As history relates, he qualified eighth, went to the grid in seventh place, and promptly burnt out his clutch on the grid. Such a mistake was excusable, as the ripples he had caused when he first dropped into the pool were already spreading wide and far. ( A side note; what is not remembered is that the other Jordan, in the hands of Andrea de Cesaris, was rapidly gaining on the leader, Ayrton Senna, when mechanical failure put him out of the race. It is general opinion that he would have won.)

As history again relates, Michael next encountered controversy at the following race, the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, where he entered in a Benetton. Jordan was incensed, as he believed he had a contract; Benetton countered that none existed, and Mercedes-Benz stood back and let things take their natural course. As we say, the rest is history and, seven World Championships later, we can look back and see how this controversial debut set the precedent for years to come.

Let us remind ourselves, in brief, of the incidents that have coloured Michael’s multi-hued career over these past fifteen years. Variously, and without detail we have: 1994: the ‘plank incident’ at Spa; the constant talk of ‘illegal’ traction control; the Damon Hill Adelaide incident. That was a good year. Then there’s Jerez, 1997; Austria and the USA 2002; these are the major incidents that stand out. There are many more, minor, less reportable ‘Schumacher incidents’ but, it must be said, Michael really pushed the boat out on Saturday in Monaco.

I don’t think there is anyone who, having seen the moment in question, could seriously doubt that at least some part of it was deliberate, was pre-meditated.

Sir Jackie Stewart was ‘willing to give Michael the benefit of the doubt’; he believes the initial ‘accident’, the lock up of the wheels into Rascasse, was just that, an accident. However, what followed, the neat parking of the car that brought out the yellow flags, Stewart puts down to Michael, and Michael only.

Keke Rosberg, on the other hand, expressed the opinion that Schumacher should ‘go home’; while Flavio Briatore explained that Michael had ‘parked the bloody car’.

These were just a few of the comments made, but the general consensus was that Michael was, quite frankly, out of order.

The Stewards, after several hours of deliberation, examination of telemetry and witness statements, agreed. Michael had deliberately impeded the progress of other cars and, as the regulations recommend, was promptly stripped of all his qualifying times and sent to the back of the grid. Most thought this fair, some thought it a tad soft, Ferrari and Michael, naturally, thought it harsh.

“Watch the video, I did nothing wrong” seemed to be Schumachers defence. Watching the video, however, condemns Michael somewhat. One fellow driver commented, dryly, that the German ‘should have covered the camera with one hand while he turned off the engine with the other…’

So, the verdict given, no appeal allowed, Sunday saw Schumacher storm through the field to an eventual fifth position, again giving us a display of awesome talent and unparalleled genius. The sheer pace made one wonder whether Michael needed pole position to win. It also begged the question – why? Why stoop so low when ones talent is so great?

Some have offered the explanation that all genius is flawed. This may be so but, I ask, could you imagine Jim Clark pulling his car to the side to protect a pole position? Or Fangio, Moss, Brabham, or even great 1980’s champions such as Alan Jones, Nelson Piquet, Prost or Rosberg? The answer is, unequivocally, no. None of those would have even considered such a move; it simply was not done. And yet, when one asks the same of Ayrton Senna, one could easily answer in the affirmative. Ayrton and Michael are from the same mould, the same mindset, where win-at-all-costs is the only way.

This manner of thinking has done Michael Schumacher no long-standing harm across his lengthy career. Many of those who have watched, with justified awe, his performances from 2000 onwards at Ferrari, will be too young to remember 1994, or 1997, or may simply have been uninterested back then. Many of those new to the sport will be questioning why such a seemingly draconian penalty was imposed for such a minor transgression. Good questions, too, but when a role model such as Schumacher, a man whom to many of the young drivers of today is still a hero, behaves in such an underhand manner, something has to be done to bring the message home: Formula One is, first and foremost, a ‘SPORT’ and, as such, must involve a level of sportsmanship. Sportsmanship involves courtesy, as well as competition; it embraces fair play, as well as ingenuity; and it is a sad fact that, in many parts of the world, Formula One only reaches the headlines when Controversy is involved (yes, the capital is, again, deliberate.)

Michael’s body language at the post qualifying press conference said it all; sheepish, guilty, embarrassed were all descriptions used on the day, and all may be right. How soon after he ‘parked’ the car, we may ask, did he realise the mistake he had made? How soon after the blatant move at Jerez, 1997, did he realise that the on-board camera would betray any excuse? And how soon after the embarrassment that was Austria, 2002, did this great driver realise how foolish, how ridiculous, he had made himself, his team, and the sport appear?

It stands to reason that the punishment may, in the eyes of the stewards, the FIA, and the many Schumacher and Ferrari fans world-wide, have ‘fitted the crime’, but consider this. From the back, Michael raced into the points – admittedly, attrition aided his cause – points that many, including myself, believe he should not have been entitled to. What discouragement is it to the younger generation that a blatant, clear as daylight attempt to contravene the rules is met with mere relegation to the back of the grid? Very little, I would say. For next race, all is forgotten.

The incident also adds heat to the fire that currently burns around Schumacher with regard to the ‘will he/won’t he’ retirement debate. This one incident, while presumed of ‘little importance’ to the future where Ferrari are concerned, has clearly had major impact on Michael. He is annoyed that he has been pilloried by just about everyone bar his team mates.

Why? Did he really believe he would get away with it? Did he seriously consider that we, who have watched him driver countless brilliant races in underperforming cars, pulling rabbits out of hats at the most unlikely places, would not question why a man of his ability could not recover a car from such a minor upset as that at the Rascasse on Saturday? If, indeed, he did believe so, serious questions should be asked of himself.

Michael Schumacher is, and always has been, a quite brilliant racing driver; he is, and always has been, superb to watch in a crisis, wonderful to watch on the limit, and controversial more often than the rest.

He once said, I seem to recall, that he would consider retirement once the younger generation begin to beat him, fair and square.

If, Michael, you have to resort to underhand tactics such as those displayed on Saturday in order to beat Alonso, or Raikkonen, or any one of the pretenders to the crown, surely that time has come?