Archive for the ‘Sport’ Category

Bahrain Grand Prix: F1 2010 Starts Here!

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Early on Friday morning, probably before any of you have read this, the F1 2010 season officially kicks off in Bahrain. It promises to be a cracker of a year, with four big teams looking neck-and-neck – Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes. Testing seemed to suggest McLaren and Ferrari may have a slight edge, but it really looks like anything could happen this weekend. It will be fascinating.

World Champion Jenson Button lines up alongside Lewis Hamilton, who had the crown before him. Button feels he has a point to prove. Hamilton will be eyeing up Alonso, in the Ferrari, who himself will feel like he has a score to settle after a fractious year in 2007, and two lacklustre years since. Furthermore, he partners Massa, who will feel he has a point to prove following his accident in Hungary last year, and there is no reason why he can’t upset the pundits yet again, after being written off time and time before. As if that wasn’t enough, some guy called Michael Schumacher (ever heard of him?) leads the Mercedes challenge, partnering Nico Rosberg, who, althuogh never setting F1 on fire, is undoubtedly talented. Whether he can hold it together next to the surprise on a 7-times world champion next to him is up in the air.

It promises to be absolutely fascinating. As is always the case, the first race is bound to provide surprises, but only time will tell exactly what they may be. New rules are in place this year: low fuel qualifying, narrower front tyres, no race refuelling. How will drivers cope? Will Michael Schumcher be on the pace over a race distance? Can Webber consistently match and beat Vettel? Will Hamilton blow away Button? Will Massa fade into the shadow of Alonso? Here is my race prediction (cue very long editorial pause – choosing between first and second is incredibly tight):

  1. Fernando Alonso;
  2. Lewis Hamilton;
  3. Jenson Button.

I’ll be honest – it’s an incredibly tough choice. There seems to be nothing between McLaren and Ferrari, but I will shade it in Ferrari’s favour. After the last three seasons, I think Alonso will do anything win the opener in Bahrain. Not that everyone else won’t, but Alonso knows he needs to set a marker at Ferrari and he will loathe the sight of a McLaren in front of him. Alonso and Hamilton won’t be afraid of banging wheels, but I think Alonso, like Prost, has enough to pull a fast one over a rival like Hamilton. Past that, Massa doesn’t have a great record starting the season, and may struggle for racecraft at the first race. He’ll be fast, but will, I think, struggle for a podium at the first race. The same goes for Schumacher. Rosberg will, I think, be in the shade of the other 7 drivers.

Which leaves Red Bull. Where exactly are they? I can’t help but feel we’ve not quite seen everything they have to offer. It will be interesting to see what happens there. There are, of course, 16 others cars too, but please don’t expect me to tell you where they will be! I’ll wait until after free practice for that!

F1 2010

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

For all the controversy we’ve had in Formula 1 over the past 3 years – Spygate, Crashgate, Liegate, the mass manufacturer pull-out, double diffusers – we’ve actually had some pretty good racing too. 2007 was a fantastic fight between the McLaren drivers and Kimi Raikkonen; 2008 featured a great battle between Hamilton and Massa; 2009 was a season split virtually down the middle, with a storytale start to the season for Brawn, with McLaren and Red Bull pushing them all the way at the end of the season – but ultimately coming up short.

You could be forgiven for thinking that we must, therefore, be due a dull season this year – especially with double diffusers legal until the end of this season (thus affecting overtaking). If you thought that, you’d be wrong.

For a start, we have four teams who will be realistically expecting to mount a serious title challenge this year, all with good driver line-ups.

There’s McLaren, with current world champion Jenson Button – the most precise driver on the grid – and Lewis Hamilton, who was champion in 2008 and has more points than any other driver in the last two seasons; they were also the form team at the end of last year.

There’s Red Bull, who probably had the pick of last year’s cars, and have the mightily quick Vettel, alongside Webber who will race this year without the impediment of metal plates in one leg. When they get their heads down, both can be virtually unstoppable, but also get caught up in drama regularly when in the middle of a pack.

There’s Mercedes – formerly Brawn GP – who have Nico Rosberg, who has never quite fully realised his potential yet. In the other car, they have a mere 7-times world champion whose name must surely BE the definition of “winner” – Michael Schumacher. He may be 41, but he’s in it to win it, and he’s shown he can still do it – beating many F1 drivers in regular karting events since his retirement.

Finally, and most excitingly, there’s Ferrari, with Alonso – a 2-times world champion, and Massa, who was, in my mind at least, comfortably the pick of the drivers in 2008 (from the third race in at least), and who drove the socks out of last year’s Ferrari until he himself was socked in the head and was conked out for the season. Alonso will bring excellent and much needed technical input to Ferrari and never has an off day; Massa is, quite simply, astoundingly quick, and has got more and more consistent every year. There is nothing to suggest he won’t bounce back from last year’s awful accident.

So, who will come out on top? Until testing, we really won’t know much. However, I would hazard this much: the McLaren may well start as the car to beat, with Red Bull and Mercedes very close behind. Hamilton will beat Button. Vettel will beat Webber, and will make less mistakes, giving him a real chance this year – as long as he can learn to overtake better. Schumacher will beat Rosberg, and will, after 3 years out, be hungry to win. He won’t easily be bullied off track in a fight because he’s laid so much on the line to come back. Ferrari will likely start a little behind the others, but with Alonso in their armour, they will start to catch up. Being slower than the others won’t matter too much either – they have the strongest line-up in F1, and there are no two better drivers to extract more speed out of a slightly slower car (Hamilton excepted – possibly).

The key to F1 2010 lies with Schumacher and Ferrari. If they are both strong, we’re in for the most exciting season in living memory. Otherwise, it’ll be Hamilton v. Vettel – and Hamilton will win.

New England @ Tampa Bay – In London

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

New England Patriots @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 25th October 2009Last weekend, I was in London for the third International Series NFL game at Wembley stadium. The first game, two years ago, was between the hopeless Miami Dolphins and the eventual Superbowl-winning New York Giants. Last year, the New Orlean Saints beat the San Diego Chargers in a closely fought offensive battle.

This year, it was the turn of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and my favourite team, the New England Patriots. It didn’t turn out to be the close affair of the previous two years, but no-one really expected it to anyway. The two teams have won four of the last eight Superbowls between them – Tampa Bay in 2001; New England won in 2002, 2004 and 2005. The Patriots should have won in 2007, going 18-0 on the way to the Superbowl only to lose to the Giants in the dying seconds. Then, last year, they lost quarterback Tom Brady in the first game, fought back to an impressive 11-5 record but just missed out on the play-offs.

Going into the game on Sunday, Tampa Bay were 0-6 and New England were 4-2, having lost to the Denver Broncos (themselves 6-0) and the New York Jets. The Patiots were favourites by fourteen points and few expected Tampa to challenge for very long.

This was proved correct very quickly, as Brandon Meriweather returned an interception for a touchdown with only the fourth play of the game to give the Patriots an early lead. He then picked off a second ball later in the first quarter and returned it to almost halfway.

New England Patriots @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 25th October 2009 Once the Patriots had the lead, they didn’t look like giving it up. By half time, they were up by 21-7, and in the second half were just as dominant. In the fourth quarter, Tom Brady was replaced by Brian Hoyer, who didn’t throw a single pass, but did scramble a couple of times for some good yardage. After a dominant win against the Tennessee Titans in week 6 (59-0), the Patriots are starting to look like a team that could go to the AFC Championship game this year. However, in order to get to that, they will almost certainly have to beat one of the Broncos, the Steelers or the Colts along the way in the play-offs – all of whom seem to be marginally better at the moment. Either way, the AFC is looking a very tough conference en route to the Superbowl. The NFC, on the other hand, looks like being between the Saints and… well, themselves, really.

New England Patriots @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 25th October 2009 Anyway, some final thoughts on the Wembley game. I’ve been to all three games, and this, I would say, has been the best overall. All three games have been very well attended, and have been good games in their own right. At the first game, there was a certain element of fascination. Many of the people who were there were people who wanted to see what the NFL was all about. Last year, there was less of that, and the game was very good anyway. This year was potentially divisive – on the one hand, the New England Patriots have a good fanbase in Britain. On the other hand, they are also one of the more unpopular teams too – you either love them or hate them for their success. If you hate them, you’re not likely to buy tickets to watch them play. Despite this, the match was easily a sellout, and the people who were there stayed interested to the end.

I am excited by the possibility of having two games next year. I would go to both games without hesitation (as long as it’s not between two teams I despise, and preferably not a Jets game). Indeed, I am all for having more than two games. A franchise would be nice, but problematic, and I can’t see myself giving up on the Patriots to support a London team. However, that’s not to say I wouldn’t happily adopt them as a second team if it means I get to see more NFL action closer to home…

One Week On: The Rangers Story Of Woe

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Rangers v Hamilton, Ibrox, 29th August 2009 Last week, I had the (dubious) pleasure of watching Rangers play at home in the Champions’ League against Romanian champions Unirea Urziceni. With a prime seat right in front of the away dugout, and within easy shouting distance of the home dugout, I was looking forward to a home win. After all, the team Rangers were playing are, on paper, by far the weakest in the group, and Ibrox doesn’t tend to be an easy place to play at.

How wrong could I have been? What should have been a comfortable 3-0, 4-0 or 4-1 victory turned into a 4-1 loss to a side worth less than a tenth of the value of the Rangers bench. Rangers took the lead within 5 minutes from a corner kick as a shot from the edge of the box took a deflection and looped over the keeper’s head and into the net. Harsh, but you make your own luck. It was looking good. A strong, attacking start gave an early reward. More of the same and the ‘Gers would be fine.

Except they weren’t. They sat back, defending deep in their own half, soaking pressure up and then sitting on the ball, going nowhere. No-one rose to challenge headers, and slowly the pub team from Eastern Europe crept down the wings, through the middle and into the box. Mendes’ opening goal was cancelled out by an equaliser from Bilasco. Rangers won a penalty, which Steven Davis missed. At half time, the teams went in at 1-1. The frustration was clear, with a number of comments flying towards Ally McCoist in the Rangers dugout. Most were to do with Jerome Rothen, on loan from PSG. To say he wasn’t popular is an understatement. The mood amongst the fans was clear – send him back to PSG and put Nacho Novo on in his place.

Rangers did make one change at half time, and it was not met with appreciation in the stands. Rothen stayed on, whilst Mendes, who picked up knock in the first half, was replaced by Kyle Lafferty. Unfortunately for him, he poked the ball in his own net within five minutes, and then Lee McCulloch did the same ten minutes later. The crowd, which was subdued when the first goal went in, was stunned into pin-drop silence. At 2-1, you could have heard the players breathing in the centre circle. At 3-1, the stunned silence was replaced first by approximately 10% of the Rangers supporters making their way to the exit, and then by those left in the stands openly booing the players loudly for some considerable time. By the dugouts, the atmosphere was openly mutinous.

At 4-1… I don’t really remember that bit. I suspect all eyes were still on the dugout. Soon after, the stadium was little over half full. No-one could quite believe the ‘Gers were losing, let alone losing so badly.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like anything will change soon. The club are £30 million in debt and have no money to buy new players. They are struggling to hold on to the players they have already. At the weekend, they drew with Hibs. Earlier in the season, they player out three 0-0 draws in a row. There doesn’t seem to be much light at the end of the tunnel. How can Rangers turn around? Is it even possible, or are they finally paying the hard price of playing in a league that doesn’t provide them with enough of the competition that it required on the European stage? And, regardless of the European stage, why are they struggling so much against Scottish teams?

The current instability at board level can’t be helping, but it also can’t be the whole story.

Renault And The Singapore Crash: The Plot Thickens Again

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Singapore GP Fernando Alonso and Nelson Piquet You’d have thought that with the announcement of the outcome of the FIA World Motor Sport Council’s hearing yesterday, the Singapore controversy would die down. Instead, another potentially explosive and certainly unhelpful time-bomb has been ignited with the release of the audio tapes from the hearing.

The audio tapes reveal an unsettled bone of contention between Piquet and Symonds on who came up with the plan to crash in order to cause a safety car, although Piquet’s legal team implicate Symonds by pointing to his seniority within the team and the unlikelihood of Piquet coming up with a strategy that would in effect make him look like a fool and gift Alonso a win.

However, the real eyebrow-raiser is the unveiling in Renault’s submission of Witness X. This witness is reportedly someone who was present at discussions about the crash, who knew about the crash before it happened and who was informed about it initially by Pat Symonds. This raises a number of questions:

  1. Who is this Witness X? Or, to put it another way, who might Pat Symonds tell about such a plot?
  2. Do they still work for Renault F1?
  3. Why has their identity been protected? Why exactly is this person protected above others?

If a fourth person knew about this plot and then kept quiet when it was enacted – regardless of their involvement in actually carrying the plot out – then they are surely implicated in conspiring to cover up in the aftermath of the plot. From the way the submissions are phrased, it seems that this person is still employed by Renault F1, which would mean that Renault have in their ranks an employee who has knowingly conspired in a covering up (although not actively implementing) a plot that knowingly endangered the lives of drivers and spectators, and which caused the Renault F1 team to cause a deliberate crash in order to unfairly gain his team an advantage. People like this should not be involved in F1.

The identity of Witness X has been made known to the President of the FIA and to some of the FIA’s lawyers. Speculation as to who this may be will rumble on. Many will conclude that the reason this person’s identity has been concealed is because they are of relative importance within the team. Indeed, you would think that, given the nature of such a plot, the person must be a senior, trusted member of the team – why would you divulge such dangerous details to a junior team member?

Suspicion seems to have fallen on three people – firstly, Piquet’s engineer, secondly, Fernando Alonso, and thirdly, Bob Bell, Renault’s Technical Director. Many will pin the blame on Alonso, but this seems unlikely to me. What we know is that Witness X knew of the plan, dismissed it, and was not aware that such a plot would be carried out until after it has been. The first thing Alonso remarked after the race upon seeing Flavio Briatore prior to the podium ceremony was on the good fortune of the safety car coming out when it did. If Alonso had suspicions and had distanced himself from a plot, I very much doubt he would have said anything at all. Bob Bell, the Technical Director, has been mentioned because he apparently appears prominently in a number of photographs from the Singapore Grand Prix, and is usually a man who keeps in the background. However, there does not appear to be any evidence to actually implicate him with any knowledge.

This leaves Piquet’s race engineer, who clearly seemed suspicious, raising questions about Piquet’s request over the radio to know which lap he is on – an unusual request. It may be an unusual request, but why would you consult your Executive Technical Director before responding to such a question – unless you were suspicious?

Just a thought.

Witch-Hunt Successful, But Little Justice Delivered

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Photo by cairnlee_cres from Flickr Today, Renault were hauled in front of the World Motor Sports Council (WMSC) as the investigation into allegations of race-fixing at last year’s Singapore Grand Prix were wrapped up. Unfortunately, the punishment dished out bore little correlation to the seriousness of the crime, and did little to draw on the context of how previous offences have been dealt with.

The charge – just to recap very quickly – was that three members of the Renault F1 team (Flavio Briatore, Pat Symonds and Nelson Piquet) conspired to fix the Singapore Grand Prix in 2008 so as to gain an unfair advantage for the team’s other driver, Fernando Alonso (although without his knowledge). The claim originated from Nelson Piquet. Briatore denied the charges, Pat Symonds chose to say as little as possible to avoid incriminating himself, but did nothing to say that such a plan was not in place – an implicit admission of guilt.

The WMSC could have permanently thrown Renault out of F1 today, such was the seriousness of the crime. However, they could take little action against the three men involved as Piquet was granted immunity, and Symonds and Briatore no longer are employed by an F1 team, and so therefore technically fall outwith the jurisdiction of the body.

The penalties actually imposed were: a suspended two-year ban for the Renault F1 team. Oh, and that’s pretty much it. Apart from billing Renault F1 for the costs of the investigation, and requiring them to take part in FIA road safety campaigns (which they actually offered themselves).

As the WMSC technically couldn’t personally punish Briatore or Symonds, they have resolved to refuse to sanction any events that either of the two involve themselves in – Briatore for an indefinte period, Symonds for a period of five years.

Here is an extract of the statement from the hearing regarding the punishment imposed upon the Renault F1 team:

The World Motor Sport Council considers Renault F1’s breaches relating to the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to be of unparalleled severity.  Renault F1’s breaches not only compromised the integrity of the sport but also endangered the lives of spectators, officials, other competitors and Nelson Piquet Jr. himself.  The World Motor Sport Council considers that offences of this severity merit permanent disqualification from the FIA Formula One World Championship.  However, having regard to the points in mitigation mentioned above and in particular the steps taken by Renault F1 to identify and address the failings within its team and condemn the actions of the individuals involved, the WMSC has decided to suspend Renault F1’s disqualification until the end of the 2011 season. The World Motor Sport Council will only activate this disqualification if Renault F1 is found guilty of a comparable breach during that time.

So, what’s the problem? Well, for one thing, Piquet – the guy who smashed his car into the wall, the only person with the physical capacity to enact this plan, as the driver of the car – walks away. No fine, no ban, not even so much as a slapped wrist. Of course, he won’t be employable to any self-respecting racing outfit, but still, there is no formal punishment. This is a result of the immunity agreement, which is unfortunate. If someone needs immunity to tell the truth, can they really be trusted in the first place?

The second problem is the lack of any real punishment to the Renault F1 team. Remember Schumacher taking out Villeneuve in 1997 at Jerez? He was excluded from the Championship that year. Remember when Schumacher passed Damon Hill on the parade lap at the British Grand Prix in 1994, and then ignored the black flag? He was given a straight 2-race ban. Remember in 2007 when McLaren were found guilty of possessing Ferrari documents? They were given a $100 million fine and excluded from the Constructors’ Championship.

Yet, none of these crimes were anything compared to the seriousness of a driver crashing on purpose, endangering himself, other drivers and spectators, in order for his team-mate to win a race. This was not like Schumacher instinctively trying to punt his rival off the track to win the World Championship desperately in the realisation that if he didn’t, he wouldn’t get another chance. This was not like Schumacher ignoring a 5-second stop/go penalty for a trivial offence. This was not like in the case of the Spy Scandal of 2007, where a McLaren held Ferrari technical documents that meant they could potentially steal ideas to gain an unfair advantage.

No, this was a blatant attempt to steal a race relying on no technical ability, but on the fact that their driver would be certain to be at the head of the field in the event of a safety car.

And let’s remember, McLaren were punished despite the fact that the Spy Scandal had nothing to do with an institutional desire to cheat at McLaren. No, it was one individual there too, albeit not one at the top of the team.

Quite simply, Renault should have been thrown out of F1, at least for the rest of this season, possibly longer. The idea that the perpetrators of the plot in Singapore last night have left the team matters little. Yes, the team have dealt with them, but it was also the team that brought the sport into disrepute. Symonds, Briatore and Piquet all worked for Renault, and Renault have to take responsibility for the actions of their staff. They are also responsible for the power structures that existed in the team that allowed this to happen – power structures that are not replicated in any other team in the pit lane.

Now I know that many will say F1 needs Renault, we mustn’t make them run away. Rubbish. We’ve survived without them before, and we could do again. Few teams are indispensible, and Renault sure aren’t one of them. They have a place on the grid next year and as such could potentially be an attractive investment – their facilities as Enstone may not be the best, but they are solid, and the team has a history of winning (albeit with Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds).

F1 should not be subject to the whims of manufacturers. Let them come and go as they please. But if they want to stay, they should understand the rules of the game, and the punishments for breaching such rules. That didn’t happen today, and that is bad for F1.

The Singapore 2008 Crash Investigation Witch-Hunt

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

The investigation into Nelson Piquet Jr’s crash in the Grand Prix of Singapore last year rolls on, with more details emerging every day – and, like most stories like this, with each turn, the story gets uglier.

The furore started shortly after the Hungarian Grand Prix this year, after which Nelson Piquet was sacked as Renault’s second driver. To be honest, it was a long time coming and was bot unexpected, but the revelations that followed – that Piquet was asked to purposely create a safety car situation last year in the night race in Singapore – came out of the blue and caused quite a stir.

It should be noted that questions were asked of the crash at the time. Some people had remarked that it was incredibly convenient that the crash benefited Fernando Alonso so well. Indeed, he went on to win the race – comfortably, in fact. However, it is not the details of the crash that I am interested in here. If you want more details, feel free to check out the accounts on F1 Fanatic (an awesome Formula 1 website) and on James Allen’s website.

What I am more concerned with here is the slightly concerning dribble of information slowly leaking out of how this enquiry is being dealt with. Firstly, some of the documents submitted by Nelson Piquet’s family were leaked, which was met by Renault with a writ for attempted blackmail by the Piquet family.

Then, in a move similar to that which was granted to McLaren drivers Pedro de la Rosa dn Fernando Alonso in the 2007 Spy Scandal, it transpired that Nelson Piquet Jr has been granted immunity if he promises to tell everything he knows. Martin Brundle described the 2007 case as having the feel of a witch-hunt – an accusation the FIA met with a writ themselves. However, today it transpires that Reanult’s Pat Symonds has also been granted immunity if he is willing to come clean and tell all himself. This is, apparently, because the FIA think he may not have told everything he knows (that is, assuming there is more to know).

So what is so interesting and dangerous about this? Well, the problem is that the whole case hinges on a meeting involving Piquet, Symonds and Renault F1 boss Flavio Briatore. The problem? No such offer of immunity has been made to Briatore. It looks like the FIA have already decided that Renault are guilty, or, more specifically, Flavio Briatore.

Whether that is right or wrong, that is not the way to go about things. It is well known that Flavio Briatore and Max Mosley are hardly the best of friends, and the issues with FOTA, Flavio and the FIA this season have done to help that. So, is the FIA (or just Max Mosley) out to get Flavio, come what may?

It does have all the hallmarks of a witch-hunt. But, obviously, to avoid a writ from the FIA myself, I couldn’t actually come out and actually say, “by the way, it’s a bit of a witch-hunt, isn’t it?”

So I’ll leave that to your imagination.

Edit: Two links for you: firstly, a transcript of Pat Symonds’ FIA interview in Belgium, and secondly, a piece on the rights and wrongs of immunity. An interesting read.