Kuwashima wrote:1) Renault's actions did not "just" put him in the lead with the majority of the race to go, but put him there in an advantageous position with regard to fuel strategy - a position he was not in at the start of the race and could never have been of his own accord. Talk about whoppee!
2) I totally disagree that in order to call the actions race-fixing, you HAVE to 100% guarantee the result. By your logic, I could attempt to kill someone by tampering with their brakes on a road car. Now I can't GUARANTEE that this person will a) get in the car, b) drive fast enough to crash at a speed that will kill them or c) that some other situation will eventuate that ensures the car stops without killing the occupant. But when the driver IS killed (as Alonso won the race here) you won't call it "murder", because I couldn't really guarantee anything, could I? What was it? Well, it was probably trespassing, and definitely vandalism of property. But murder, nooooooo!
3) The reason your example is 'extreme' is because it's not relevant. Running on a light fuel load is a) legal under the regulations, b) an accepted tactic by the grid, and c) everyone can choose to do it or not to do it. It is not an example of anything even remotely close to breaking the regulations of the sport. If I wanted to be even more 'extreme', I could say "Driving quicker than your opponent is a form of position-fixing". But that argument would be nonsensical, as is yours!
4) The argument that says "it's hard to define exactly where team orders finishes and contriving results begins" is a fine point on it's own, but to use that the justify clearly obvious breaches of the moral code of the sport is not fair. It's somewhat akin to a slippery slope argument: "Oh we can't possibly lower the speed limit from 80kph to 60kph, because where will it end?? It's the thin end of the wedge and one day the speed limit will be -10kph and we'll all be driving backwards". ie. nonsense. Just because team orders is a tricky subject, doesn't mean that deliberately crashing your car to vault your teammate into a position to win he race he by rights should never have been in is not a heinous act.
(1) Agree. But that is still way off what I would call "race fixing".
(2) I still think to label an act as "race fixing" requires someone to seek to contrive a result to a far greater extent than what Renault allegedly did by putting Alonso at the head of the field to maximise his strategy. I don't necessarily think you have to guarantee the result 100%, but it's got to come closer than what Renault allegedly did. Throw your wicket away in the cricket at a crucial stage in the innings, score an own goal in soccer, those things play a much greater role in the ultimate result than what Renault are accused of. It's a 'balance of probabilities' question. The brake tampering example doesn't work (even though it is an extreme of the logic) because on the balance of probabilities, there is a fairly large chance that a person will drive fast enough for failed brakes to cause a crash. You used a lightning bolt example previously. There is also a fairly large chance that e.g. a competitor on drugs will NOT be struck by lightning mid race. There was a decent chance Alonso would win with 40-odd laps to go, but there was also a substantial (even if not majority) chance that e.g. he could DNF (he did have a problem in quali after all which is what triggered the whole affair), he could crash, or someone would go even faster than him, or other safety car interventions could shaft his strategy.
(3) Exactly. You've actually just made my point. I'm simply pointing out that there's not even legal clarity about what is allowed and acceptable to put someone at the head of the field.
(4) I'm not justifying any "obvious breach of the moral code of the sport". If what Renault are alleged to have done is proven, I consider it Machiavellian, unsporting, downright dangerous and not something I'd approve of. But that's based on my view of what is the "moral code of the sport". And anyone else who has labelled what Renault are alleged to have done as "cheating" are also merely applying their personal view of what is the "moral code of the sport". And so frankly will the WMSC be doing the same. It just so happens that most people's view of the "moral code of the sport" are similar. But there is no regulation saying it has to be so. It is perfectly feasible for someone with a different view of the "moral code of the sport" to see what Renault allegedly did as creative and sneaky and even allowable. That was the thrust of Dodgins' article which got me started on this position to begin with.
Punish Renault for doing something dangerous, fine. And if this leads to clarification and codification of what is and is not allowed, of what is and is not part of the moral code of the sport, then fine. But I have a major problem with hanging, drawing and quartering Renault, and decrying what they are alleged to have done as "cheating" and "race fixing", based on "rules" and a "moral code" which is not enshrined anywhere and which no-one can point to. Neither you nor I nor Max nor anyone else who has passed comment is the arbiter of what is the "moral code of the sport", even though, as members of the motorsport community even on a tangential fan level, we all have a say. As it turns out, the WMSC will be the arbiter, only because they are the authority in question, and not because of any moral superiority.
