Originally Posted by Tumbo
Perhaps you should change your name over to GOD devote since you make such sweeping statements as to what one MUST do and how absolutely correct your opinions are in every way, shape and form. Or alternatively you could possibly understand that there are a large percentage of ppl who are expressing an opinion different to yours and that possibly when it comes to what took place last weekend.
Since you seem to be so in love with Natural Justice let us just for a second take the current lot of rules out of the equation (since they are so 'unjust') and consider what occurred during the race where a driver was leading as a result of an on-track incident going into the first corner and managed to maintain that lead until a team order to pull over.
Now a lot seem to say were it not for Vettel then Alonso would have been leading not Massa - MOOT POINT, this is racing and when a racing incident occurs then you say probably should have fallen one way but ultimately it resulted in this (rather than say a team-mate crashing into the barricades to let you take your first win of the season......there a blatent action designed to manipulate the results).
In relation to the 'unjust' rule - interesting to see that in the 8yrs since this rule was put into place 2 things have occurred. Firstly, there haven't been any team-order controversies bar Piquet into the wall (which became apparent 12mths on) and the whole FA 'they're favouring the upstart' McLaren debacle in 2007. Secondly, as mentioned there have been actions taken on the track which has resulted in the end of race standings matching those sought by the team. In all of this there has been minimal outcry and no talk of 'an unjust rule'. The reason being that the letter of the law was followed by acting in a way which best met the intended spirit of the law. What happened on the weekend was akin to Austria 2002 in terms of breaking the spirit of way in which 'team orders' have been seen but went further as now thanks to that day 8yrs ago we have a rule in place.
Natural Justice principles would guide one to state that outside the regulations there is an expectation from the organising body, your fellow competitors and the viewing public that while there is an expectation that teams will act in their best interests they will not manipulate races in such a blatent and disgraceful manner.......cause seriously if FA was that much faster he should have been able to pass, and if he has the talent he claims to and which 2 WDCs point to he should be able to do so w/out bleeting on the radio. Even if the rule is 'unjust' (which is difficult to comprehend given what was previously mentioned about lack of prior complaints and the ways in which teams have successfully without controversy achieved their intended means) you have to look at the fact that Ferrari has signed up to the rule every yr that it has been in place. They never used their veto power in relation to this rule. They never sought for the ruling to be changed. They never put forward an amendment to the rule so that it's intended 'spirit' might be better achieved. As such they have acted in a way which shows they have been in support of this rule.
F1 is something which one signs up to, it is not an existing right to race, there is no natural law stating that one has an entry into this elite club. As such provided the rules do not impinge on any existing right they can outline whatever rulings - the main issue would be that there is fair application of all processes (well here Ferrari had the right to put their case to the Stewards, there will be a WMSC hearing and of course a finding will be handed down which will hopefully show fair and due process - including ACTUAL implimentation of process if they are found guilty) and that all teams have been held to the same standard (well McLaren were nailed to the wall over spygate, Renault were nailed to the wall over crashgate so it isn't as if other teams skirting the outside of the rules have gotten away scott-free).
It is probably best to finish off talking about Martin Luther King Jnr who probably summed it up best:
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Well if Ferrari feel the law is unjust then how about they TAKE their penalty and show it so for that very reason? Other than having it changed retrospectively and getting away scott free.
