Grand Prix Rejects

It's not a reject driver, but... I'll just leave this here:

http://www.flagworld.com/news/2012/05/10/barrichello-reveals-ferrari-threat-of-2002/

Well there was a Brazilian journalist called Lemyr Martins that published a book which contained a supposed dialogue that happened during the race between Todt and Barrichello. Apparently Ferrari had kidnapped Barrichello's mother (or according to others, his dog) as a way to persuade Barrichello to do what he ended up doing. This is a story that has been debunked and ridicularized though, and seems a bit extreme in its nature.

To be honest it sounds like Rubens making up bull to cover for the fact that he rolled over like the good dog he was.

Waris wrote:It's not a reject driver, but... I'll just leave this here:

http://www.flagworld.com/news/2012/05/10/barrichello-reveals-ferrari-threat-of-2002/

According to what Italian press wrote, it seems that Todt said to Barrichello that he would have been fired if he hadn't allowed Schumacher to take the lead.

He says it was about more than his job.
Maybe that story about his mother or dog being kidnapped is true, but they were saying it as a joke and he took it to be a real threat? I can imagine Rubinho doing that.

Waris wrote:Maybe that story about his mother or dog being kidnapped is true, but they were saying it as a joke and he took it to be a real threat? I can imagine Rubinho doing that.

Or maybe his grandmother, who lives near of Interlagos track...

EDIT. accorting to some sources I read, Barrichello said - without being to explicit - that Ferrari threatened him to be fired and to boycott his following career in another teams.

I can understand Ferrari firing Rubens if he failed to comply with team orders, but how on earth could they have stopped him going to another team?

James1978 wrote:I can understand Ferrari firing Rubens if he failed to comply with team orders, but how on earth could they have stopped him going to another team?

Well... I don't know.

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

James1978 wrote:I can understand Ferrari firing Rubens if he failed to comply with team orders, but how on earth could they have stopped him going to another team?

Well... I don't know.

I'd only heard about the first part of that comment (the threat to sack Rubens then and there), not the second part about threatening to disrupt any future career he might have wanted to have within the sport.
As to how they could have ensured that no other team hired Rubens, that is less clear - they could directly pressurise Sauber by threatening to withdraw support, but they were the only other team that was directly dependent on Ferrari at the time. If they were to follow through on that threat, then the only way they could do so, I imagine, would be to threaten to harass said team in the political backrooms of the sport - perhaps by continually bringing questions about the legality of their cars or by putting pressure on the FIA to pass regulations that damaged the competitiveness of any team that hired Rubens.

mario wrote:

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

James1978 wrote:I can understand Ferrari firing Rubens if he failed to comply with team orders, but how on earth could they have stopped him going to another team?

Well... I don't know.

I'd only heard about the first part of that comment (the threat to sack Rubens then and there), not the second part about threatening to disrupt any future career he might have wanted to have within the sport.
As to how they could have ensured that no other team hired Rubens, that is less clear - they could directly pressurise Sauber by threatening to withdraw support, but they were the only other team that was directly dependent on Ferrari at the time. If they were to follow through on that threat, then the only way they could do so, I imagine, would be to threaten to harass said team in the political backrooms of the sport - perhaps by continually bringing questions about the legality of their cars or by putting pressure on the FIA to pass regulations that damaged the competitiveness of any team that hired Rubens.

Or by quite simply paying teams to not hire Rubens, but I doubt that would either stay secret for long or that Ferrari would be willing to pay other teams directly.

NAM wrote:Apparently Ferrari had kidnapped Barrichello's mother (or according to others, his dog)

I love rumours!

pasta_maldonado wrote:Or by quite simply paying teams to not hire Rubens, but I doubt that would either stay secret for long or that Ferrari would be willing to pay other teams directly.

Me too I doubt it.
Maybe Ferrari threatened Barrichello to throw papayas at him?

So F1 drivers don't need references from their former teams then, commenting on things like their commitment to PR, tecnical feedback during testing, etc???

Sunshine_Baby_[IT] wrote:

pasta_maldonado wrote:Or by quite simply paying teams to not hire Rubens, but I doubt that would either stay secret for long or that Ferrari would be willing to pay other teams directly.

Me too I doubt it.
Maybe Ferrari threatened Barrichello to throw papayas at him?

Paying your rivals not to hire a particular driver would effectively be subsidising other teams, making them more competitive - something that I really cannot see Ferrari wanting to do.

All in all, whilst it is possible that Ferrari might have made such an aggressive threat, could they have actually followed through with it? The negative publicity that Ferrari received at the time was pretty severe, but if they had publicly dropped Rubens and effectively arranged for him to be blacklisted within F1 (a move that would probably have been hard to conceal), the negative publicity that they would have received at the time would surely have made that dispute look trivial by comparison.
The row that broke out hurt their relations with their sponsors at the time - if they had received enough negative publicity at the time, is it perhaps possible that some of their sponsors might have walked out on the team as a result, much in the same way that some sponsors (like ING) walked out of the Renault team after the "Crashgate" controversy came to light, rather than wanting to be associated with that level of negative press?

dr-baker wrote:So F1 drivers don't need references from their former teams then, commenting on things like their commitment to PR, tecnical feedback during testing, etc???

That is probably about the limit of what Ferrari could have done in the circumstances - spreading enough negative stories about Rubens's abilities, behaviour and otherwise blackening his character in a way that would make him unattractive to other teams. It's an unpleasant prospect, but one that could conceivably have been carried out in the circumstances.

Maybe Ferrari just asked him nicely, and he is trying to make something out of nothing?

Well, the question is whether they have threatened him with something and not whether that threat was believeable: as talented and good human being Barrichello is, he always seemed to have a certain naïveté. Therefore I can easily imagine Todt telling him that they'd put him on the F1 blacklist and, in a display of being gullible, Barrichello did what he was told to do, although as passive-agressively as he could get away with despite the threat being rather empty

Although, come to think about it, there might have been an ounce of truth to said threat: I for my part can't imagine drivers who disobey team orders to be that popular with other teams. Even though Ferrari asked unreasonable things of him, I as a team boss would not hire somebody who'd not do the dirty work should it be needed to be done.

Klon wrote:Even though Ferrari asked unreasonable things of him, I as a team boss would not hire somebody who'd not do the dirty work should it be needed to be done.

The validity of that team order was debatable at best. No wonder the FIA quickly banned team orders until 2010 after that.

Klon wrote:Well, the question is whether they have threatened him with something and not whether that threat was believeable: as talented and good human being Barrichello is, he always seemed to have a certain naïveté. Therefore I can easily imagine Todt telling him that they'd put him on the F1 blacklist and, in a display of being gullible, Barrichello did what he was told to do, although as passive-agressively as he could get away with despite the threat being rather empty

Probably you are right. Also it seem they threatened him during the final laps and I don't think that while he was racing he was wondering if their supposed threat was elievable or not.

Although, come to think about it, there might have been an ounce of truth to said threat: I for my part can't imagine drivers who disobey team orders to be that popular with other teams. Even though Ferrari asked unreasonable things of him, I as a team boss would not hire somebody who'd not do the dirty work should it be needed to be done.

This is true.

i wouldnt know *walks off whistling the theme to the italian job*

If it was really such a big thing then why did Rubens not tell it now? I mean, what could Ferrari say now, seeing that he's not only left Ferrari, but also F1. Why is he still keeping us in the dark about this? Why doesn't he tell us all what Ferrari said? I'm sure that his family will be given round-the-clock protection if his family is seriously being targetted.
I think it is all just crap. Barrichello is the bank of excuses, but I don't expect all this from him. Is he saying this now because Michael has retired? Why didn't he say it in 2008, when Todt left F1? Because he was there then? All these guys- Jos Verstappen, Norberto Fontana and now Barrichello; they're all the same. They just want their paycheque and then go about circulating stories.

Barrichello is reminding the rest of the world that he exists. Just like Jacques Villeneuve does every so often. Nothing new here.