Brazil GP reversal: a case of conflict of interest?

[climb]

The decision of FIA to re-give Fisichella his win, reverses a previous and contrary decision who was taken by chronometrists, who favourished Kimi.
But who are the people entrusted of this important service?
Tag-heure, who is at the same time a prime sponsor of McLaren, the car run by Kimi.

Is there, in your opinion, the possibility to talk about a conflict of interest?
Should be the sponsor of a team be entrusted such a delicate activity?
Or, vice versa, is that right that the official chronometer service supplier be allowed to sponsor a team involved in the races they work on?

[BootsOntheSide]

Well spotted Climb! That's something that had escaped my attention, and clearly needs to be looked into. It sounds like a definate conflict of interest, adn is perhaps the onyl explanation why a clearly wrong result was paraded to the world after the race.

[Suzy]

No conflict of interest I'm afraid: Tag-Heuer's involvement in Formula One is overseen by FOA (Formula One Administration Ltd)!

If you look at any official F1 timing-sheet you will see an extremely long disclaimer by TAG showing that This states that the data produced is owned by FOA Ltd. So,logic dictates that, if the FOA claims to own the data, it must be responsible for producing it, using technology supplied by TAG Heuer and Siemens.

[Glen]

I reckon the doubt was not over the time tha Fisichella crossed the line (which is automated), but rather the time that ther red flag was thrown. I don't know how that works (do they press a "red flag button", linked to the timing equipment?) but it strikes me that this would be the weak link.

[climb]

Good point Glen!


for Suzy:
Italiaracing.net web site (sorry, it's in italian!) talks about "tag-heuer chronometrist".
What is important to clarify is whether people working on the track are tag-heuer employees or not.
If so, Suzy, is clear that the formal property of data is completely unrelevant, because the owner is bound to accept what is given by the material chronometrist, not being himself who takes the times.
FOA is surely responsible, but do they have a direct involvement on timekeeping?

[Super Tourer]

This is just another example of the vauge way the FIA run F1 these days. Ambiguous rules, inconsistently applied - at this level with teams throwing millions at F1, the FIA shouldn't have to have their attention drawn to mistakes like this - they should know which car is on which lap and when. Surely....

[Peter Mallett]

Surely its Seimens timing though. Tag provides the gubbins but Seimens does the analysis and issues the reports. Summink like that anyway.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Super Tourer
This is just another example of the vauge way the FIA run F1 these days. Ambiguous rules, inconsistently applied - at this level with teams throwing millions at F1, the FIA shouldn't have to have their attention drawn to mistakes like this - they should know which car is on which lap and when. Surely....

They do know "which car is on which lap and when" - they just lack a system for defining exactly when the red flag goes down. In virtually all circumstances this would never come into play - what are the chances of Fisi passing the start line within a couple of seconds of the red flag? Very minimal. In most races the leader would be beyond doubt - it is just a freak occurence.

[Suzy]

Climb: my understanding of the situation is that Tag and Siemens only supply the technology to the FIA. As far as I know, there are NO Tag/Siemens employees actually working on the data.

As I also understand it: FOA deal with it all and have done since the time of BernieVision - which does not exist anymore - and still use a less-advanced version now. The FOA controlled all the advanced software and it is used by the FIA to make decisions based on the sensors. Again, Tag and Siemens only supply the technology; the FOA are responsible for operating it.

Like I say, there doesn't appear to be any conflict-of-interest here.

[climb]

Originally posted by Suzy
No conflict of interest I'm afraid: Tag-Heuer's involvement in Formula One is overseen by FOA (Formula One Administration Ltd)!

If you look at any official F1 timing-sheet you will see an extremely long disclaimer by TAG showing that This states that the data produced is owned by FOA Ltd. So,logic dictates that, if the FOA claims to own the data, it must be responsible for producing it, using technology supplied by TAG Heuer and Siemens.

TO people still doubtful about Tag-heuer involvement: taken directly from Ta-heure official website:

[Suzy]

Climb: they ARE official timekeepers to the FIA Formula One World Championship in as much as that they supply the SOFTWARE to FOA Ltd! It doesn't mean that any TAG employees work for the FIA or FOA Ltd.

You don't have to directly work for a team/organisation to supply stuff to them.

To give you an example of what I mean: I supply material to Ten-Tenths for the newsletter (occasionally) - that doesn't make me an employee of this website.

[Peter Mallett]

I've got a Tag Heuer watch. Does that make me a Macaroon employee?

[Sodemo]

I'd love a Tag watch, but the prices are a bit

[steve_r]

Ahhh, but there is another conflict of interest.

I have it on good authorioty that the marshell on turn 6, who put out the red flag smokes Marlboro lights.

[climb]

Originally posted by Suzy
Climb: they ARE official timekeepers to the FIA Formula One World Championship in as much as that they supply the SOFTWARE to FOA Ltd! It doesn't mean that any TAG employees work for the FIA or FOA Ltd.

To give you an example of what I mean: I supply material to Ten-Tenths for the newsletter (occasionally) - that doesn't make me an employee of this website.

Sorry Suzy, I respect your point of view, but I don't agree:

One thing is being OFFICIAL SUPPLIERS: it would mean that they just provide technical stuff (as you claim)
Another thing is being OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPERS: it means (in my opinion) that their activity goes far beyond the simple sale or rent of timing devices

Moreover, my suspicion is NOT that some Tag employees work for FOA, but that FOA may have wholly outsourced timekeeping activity to an external company, which would be absolutely legal and normal(a high level of skilll is mandatory), unless the appointed timekeeper has a particular interest at the result of the races, as it seems to be the case of TAG

[climb]

[kdr]

Originally posted by climb
unless the appointed timekeeper has a particular interest at the result of the races, as it seems to be the case of TAG

after 3 ferrari wdcs...TAG haven't made a very good job of it so far.

i reckon the FIA is using fake TAGs bought from camden market.

oops no...that was me!

[Suzy]

TAG have supplied the equipment to the FIA for 11 years now and this is the first time there has been a "problem".

It wasn't a problem during Jerez 1997 when the top 3 on the grid set identical times; the TAG back-up timing machine had produced the same figures.

If TAG had set out to try and arrange a McLaren win then they would have known it wouldn't work. Firstly, there are a heck of a lot of people keeping manual lapcharts just in case of a technical failure. How often have we seen no times for pitstops or the timing monitors go blank midway through a GP? The journalists in the press room who keep lapcharts were also aware of a discrepancy.

Secondly, it would be incredibly damaging for TAG to even contemplate doing such a thing. There is no place to hide in F1 - you will always be found out if you try and do anything wrong.

All I know is that the timing system experienced a number of problems during the weekend as far back as Friday when some drivers' were not registering times whilst out on the track as there were sensor problems. Olivier Panis was an innocent "victim" on Friday when his qualifying time put him one place further down the grid than he should have been. His sector times for Friday Qualifying do not add up to the final time that he registered.

At the end of the day, regardless of who operates the software, there was some sort of malfunction. Perhaps it was the rain that caused it. Problems arise with equipment from time-to-time. Like all those problems they used to have at the Spanish GP when the lights were supposed to go from red to green but, well, it was a standing joke about Spanish wiring. In the end, the lights just go off to signify the start of a race.

I very-much doubt there is any conspiracy. Otherwise Mika would have won Silverstone 1998 as TAG could easily have claimed that Michael DIDN'T cross the line on the way to his pit garage if they wanted to.

[Epsilon]

Incidentally, TAG and Heuer weren't always the same company. TAG has sponsored McLaren since the 80's, and Heuer has been doing F1 stuff since 1971. It didn't become TAG Heuer until 1985, and then McLaren's TAG sponsorship naturally became TAG Heuer.

[Miss Hardt]

Originally posted by climb
(sorry, it's in italian!)

So, what? I can read it

[Peter Mallett]

I use an MST transponder on my racing car but the B"$%^&*s have never given me a win. I think I'll revoke their contract.

[ljakse]

Is that a conspiracy theory or what?!

I have to say I'm with Suzy on this one - I just can't imagine 'F1 official timekeeper' gambling to lose that position.

[KA]

Originally posted by ljakse
Is that a conspiracy theory or what?!

I have to say I'm with Suzy on this one - I just can't imagine 'F1 official timekeeper' gambling to lose that position.

Excatly- TAG-Heuer will presumably be supplying timing equipment & software for use in other sports, and you can just imagine the effect that even the slightest hint that they'd been involved in any kind of conspiracy to manipulate a GP result would do their credibility in the market, and their sales figures....

You might as well argue that there's a conflict of interest around the use of the Safety Car because they use a Mercedes (although now you come to mention it..... )

[avsfan733]

And for people who continue to fret on this conspircay, if someone else did it wouldn't they be inclined to rig it so that TagHeur didn't win?

[climb]

Suzy & others:

never talked about conspiracy, I just posed a problem of conflict of interests, which is not to be analyzed referring to a particular fact, but as a general topic.
I was just posing the qiestion whether is fair that the official timekeeper be the sponsor of a team.
About the Fisichella reversal, also here you can't refer to an organised conspiracy, because the situation imposed a decision to be taken in half a second. It has to be added that Fisi was absolutely fair in accepting the ciordict sayng that ("rules are rules").
But nobody can definitely eliminate the doubt that, having to decide spot the position of Kimi at the red flag exposure, anyone may have tried to enforce reality a litte bit...