Saxat från "
www.forcef1.com"
After the Hungarian GP and the tire debacle what is going on in the 3 weeks in between the penultimate and the final European Grand Prix to be driven by F1 in 2003, we come again to an discussion point what has been discusses before, ... Does the FIA favor Ferrari over any other team in F1, wherefrom they have been accused before... check this out:
For some time in Formula One there has been a vaguely cynical attitude towards the nature of the relationship between the FIA and Michael Schumacher. Yet this cynicism has failed to materialise in terms of outright claims of unfair treatment in favour of Schumacher.
On the surface of it, this is understandable. But looking more deeply into the pattern of controversy that has clouded Schumacher’s time at Ferrari, particularly over the last couple years when he has been in a championship-winning position, reveals a surprisingly strong trend of support for Schumacher from the sports’ governing body. This support is usually quite subtle and easily overseen during the heat of a race, but it exists.
No form of intervention could salvage Michael Schumacher’s 1996 title attempt, frustrated by mechanical failures in many races and further hampered by a slow, ill-handling car not tailored specifically to his requirements as in his previous few years at Benetton. It is to be expected that no support would be detected when the driver in question has virtually no chance of winning anyway.
For 1997 this also appeared to be the case, as the Ferrari team were off the pace for much of the season. With two rounds remaining, Schumacher trailed Jacques Villeneuve (Williams-Renault) by nine points, needing to beat his rival in Japan to stay in realistic contention. During a practice session prior to the race several drivers including Villeneuve were judged to have passed a yellow flag on a straight without having slowed down sufficiently. Though the other drivers received warnings, Villeneuve was placed on a suspended ban due to a similar infringement some time earlier. After the race he was disqualified and warned not to appeal against the decision, as he would risk being thrown out of the championship entirely. This openly undemocratic action on behalf of the FIA gave Schumacher a one-point lead going into the final round. Two years later, when the Ferraris of Schumacher and Irvine were disqualified from the Malaysian Grand Prix for a technical infringement, their appeal was both heard and accepted. Clear evidence of dual standards.
At the following event Schumacher attempted to run Villeneuve off the road as the Williams driver tried to pass him. Schumacher failed in his attempt and caused his own retirement. While the FIA publicly condemned his actions his punishment consisted of no more than his disqualification from the championship – no real punishment as he had lost anyway – and enforced participation in a driver safety campaign. No suspended ban and, unlike Ayrton Senna after a similar incident in Japan 1990, no declaration that he was an unsafe driver even though Schumacher had tried the exact same foul play with success in 1994.
Throughout 1997 team tactics had been key to the Ferrari agenda. Nowhere was this more obvious than in Japan when Eddie Irvine gave up the lead of the race – which would have been his first Grand Prix victory – to give Schumacher the victory he needed. Irvine’s role within the team was totally subservient to Schumacher’s title aspirations. Very low.....
Two Grands Prix later, at the 1998 Australian Grand Prix, Mika Hakkinen was given the lead by his McLaren-Mercedes team mate David Coulthard. Coulthard did so because Hakkinen had originally lost the lead through an accidental extra pit stop and Coulthard returned the lead to him to honour their gentlemen’s agreement. After the race the FIA announced new legislation to prevent teamwork between drivers. Clearly, as long as team tactics were benefiting Schumacher, they were acceptable. But as soon as other teams began employing them the FIA banned them instantly. At the Austrian Grand Prix of that year Irvine was again called on to let Schumacher passed, and the FIA quietly forgot their new rules.
Ferrari had begun 1998 with the bold promise that they would win both titles and, in addition to the above, FIA interference and suspicious leniency reached a new peak during this year. In Canada, Hakkinen (Schumacher’s new chief rival) retired at the second start but the race continued despite a huge crash at the first corner. Later on, Schumacher shot from the pit lane and moved across on Heinz-Harald Frentzen, sending his countryman spinning into retirement. His punishment for the dangerous and avoidable incident was a mere 10-second stop-go penalty, no trouble in a race where attrition had claimed his major rivals. At the following race acrimony was in the air again after the two McLarens shot into the lead at the start but the race was stopped and restarted due to a stalled car. Schumacher lead away the second time. At Britain, the next round, Schumacher was given a ten second stop-go penalty for an illegal overtaking manoeuvre in an unsafe situation. Yet due to a supposed loophole in the rules he served his sentence after the end of the race, giving him victory.
Yet in spite of all this Schumacher still failed to become champion in 1998, while more team orders made him make a run for the title "Virtually" only because this was only done by the help of Eddie Irvine who had to give places to the No.1-driver, or in 1999 when he broke his leg, and Eddie had just to little points to become worldchampion for Ferrari because of the team orders earlier in the season of 99 in favour for the broken-leg-dude.
Throughout 2000 the interference continued. McLaren were blighted by dubious and poorly justified disqualifications in Brazil and Austria. In the former it was acknowledged the five of the top six cars potentially have been thrown out due to illegal ride heights and non-standard measurements, but the only one that was disqualified was Coulthard’s McLaren. Schumacher crashed out of the German Grand Prix at the first bend, yet more dubious FIA practices robbed Hakkinen of victory. An anti-McLaren spectator ventured onto the circuit but rather than stop the race the FIA merely suspended it behind the safety car, destroying Hakkinen’s 30-second lead over eventual winner Rubens Barrichello in the second Ferrari. A similar situation occurred in Italy. Schumacher lead from Hakkinen at the start but a horrific crash further back killed a marshal and destroyed half the field. Again, the race was not stopped but racing order was preserved through using the safety car for a twelve-lap period (unprecedented in Formula One).
Schumacher took pole for the US GP and requested that the entire grid be moved back two rows so that he would not be disadvantaged by the lower grip brick surface that followed the start line. His request was upheld and the grid duly moved back. Ayrton Senna made a very similar request prior to the 1990 Japanese Grand Prix, asking that his pole position be moved away from the less grippy right-hand side of the track. His request was refused. Once more, fulfillment of Schumacher's wishes sets a new precedent for the FIA and contradicts their previous assertion of the rules.
At the final round of the season – by which time the title race was resolved (but wouldn’t have been if the above situations had been handled fairly) – both Hakkinen and Schumacher were observed to have jumped the start. Hakkinen was given a 10-second stop-go penalty. Schumacher went unpunished and won the race.
Recently the FIA appointed the Italian lawyer Roberto Causo as a race steward. Causo is better known as the lawyer who successfully defended Ferrari against the charge of use of illegal bodywork at the 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix. His appointment is yet another factor suggesting strong pro-Ferrari and pro-Schumacher sympathies within the FIA.
Both FOCA President (and undisputed ruler of Formula One) Bernie Ecclestone and FIA President Max Mosley have repeatedly declared their public support for Michael Schumacher. They have also claimed that for a Ferrari to win the title would be ‘good for Formula One’. Whether they subscribe to the nostalgic notions of Ferrari glories past, or as businessmen simply like to see the people who pay the most win the most, is irrelevant. The support is there, they admit it exists and it is frequently identifiable in Grand Prix. It is they who control the legislative process and essentially run Formula One. With as much power as they have, maintaining a discrete and powerful system of pressure in favour of Michael Schumacher would not be difficult. The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is often discredited and often with good cause. That does not mean that conspiracies do not exist, and there is considerable evidence to suggest that on exists here.
Make of it what thou will.
'Mansell is slowing it down, taking it easy. Oh no he isn't! It's a lap record.' - Murray Walker
Ska vi bortse från allt det och bara idiotförklara karln?
För övrigt är det väl än märkligare, klantigare och mer korkat att med berått mod köra sina egna stallkamrater av banan. Det har DC lyckats med ett par gånger, till Mikas säkert gränslösa glädje, och inte heller DC har någon hatklubb att tala om. Nä, som sagt, jag BEGRIPER inte var allt detta Schumi-hat kommer ifrån. 
Sorry, Lucy, blev lite stirrig där.
Dock så skall det tilläggas att jag alltid har väl underbyggd fakta i mina "dissningar" av de tråkiga bröderna från Kerpen. 
