The 2011 Brooks Orpik Hypocrisy Award

It's that time again: we award our blog's annual award for the most dishonest and hypocritical public statement made by a professional sportsperson. The selection is rather obviously biased toward the sports we follow most, and those tend to be ice hockey and F1.

**

We already mentioned McLaren's ridiculous hypocrisy about team orders last year, citing the 2008 German Grand Prix, where then-McLaren driver Heikki Kovalainen was ordered to let Lewis Hamilton pass him. Hamilton won the title that year, and in 2010, told the BBC that there are no team orders at McLaren, and:

"I personally would not want to win the championship other than by winning it fairly."

Hamilton won the 2008 world championship by one point. Arguably, had Heikki not let him past at Hockenheim, he wouldn't have won that race, and that might have cost him the championship. There is, of course, the additional matter of the incident at Singapore; had the results been amended and Alonso disqualified, as he should have been, Massa would be world champion.

I don't generally like these kinds of what ifs, but I like hypocrisy even less. So given that Lewis's championship stands on the Singapore incident and the team order at Hockenheim, we're still waiting for him to relinquish his world championship.

**

Another excellent candidate would be Milan Lucic, whom I've previously maligned on this blog. Earlier this fall, he hit Sabres goaltender and reigning Olympic MVP Ryan Miller, who's been out since with a concussion.

Lucic still isn't much of a tough guy. While visiting NESN, Don Cherry called Milan Lucic "a disgrace to the Bruins" for hiding behind the linesmen in a fight:

It's priceless how uncomfortable Mike Milbury is. Last season, Lucic punched Atlanta's Freddy Meyer while he was being restrained by a linesman, keeping up the trend. In addition to being a dirty player in general and having been suspended by the league before, Lucic deliberately hit Miller and only got a two-minute penalty for charging. There's fairly wide consensus that he sohuld have got a five-minute major and a suspension, but NHL disciplinarian Brendan Shanahan dropped the ball and, incredibly, said he believed Lucic's ridiculous lie that he didn't hit Miller on purpose.

As TSN's Dave Hodge said, "in the end, it was easier for Lucic to avoid a suspension than to avoid Miller because he tried to avoid a suspension." Because of his behavior in general and the incredible hypocrisy of claiming he tried to avoid Miller, it would be tempting to give this one to Lucic.

**

Neither of them, however, win the award this year. In fact, this year the Brooks Orpik Hypocrisy Award returns to its roots in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And we're going after the cigarette-smoking Next One himself.

Over the past year, no single instance of ridiculous hypocrisy has struck us as more over-the-top and sanctimonious than Mario Lemieux's diatribe against fighting. You can read the whole thing here. He was supposedly so disgusted that the New York Islanders got into fights with his Pittsburgh Penguins that he contemplated leaving hockey. This from the man whose organization employs one of the dirtiest players in the NHL, Matt Cooke, and the guy whose back-breaking antics brought about this very award. Also, his team was tied for second place for most fighting majors in the NHL regular season that year. So apparently, in Super Mario's books, his team gets to fight as much as they like and go headhunting for their opponents' stars, but when others do it, it makes Baby Mario cry. Disgusting.

So the runaway winner this year is Mario Lemieux, of the Pittsburgh Penguins.

**

The Brooks Orpik Hypocrisy Award is given by the writers of this blog to the athlete who makes the most preposterously hypocritical comment of the year.

Previous winners:

2010 - Lewis Hamilton, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, F1
2009 - Brooks Orpik, Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL

Happy birthday Jessica Michibata!

I can't believe we've neglected the devastatingly cute Jessica Michibata, a beautiful Japanese model and girlfriend of F1 world champ Jenson Alexander Lyons Button MBE.

It's her birthday today, so it seems like a good time to correct our mistake.

Happy birthday!

The DRS is killing F1

The DRS, or Drag Reduction System, is killing F1. Yes, I mean that stupid opening rear wing. The Singapore grand prix was a perfect example of everything that's wrong with it.

The DRS allows faster cars to overtake slower ones on the designated "DRS section" of the track. The reason for bringing the system in is that it allows more overtakes, and sure, it's done that. However, it's also teaching us that overtaking in itself doesn't make F1 any better. In fact, I think it's done the opposite.

First of all, I have to argue that it's not overtaking in itself that's exciting. If it was just overtakes, then you'd have to argue that lapping cars is exciting. It's the battle between two drivers that's exciting, and with the DRS, that's exactly what we're not seeing. Now, when drivers in faster cars are stuck behind slower ones, they don't need to make any effort to pass the drivers in front; just wait for the DRS zone and away you go. There's no battle involved, and no excitement whatsoever for the viewer.

Secondly, in this fetish for overtaking, few commentators seem to have considered is what the DRS actually does. In a nutshell:

The DRS more effectively sorts cars into an order of speed.

That's it. By making it much easier for faster cars to overtake slower ones, it effectively reduces the role that driver skill plays; a better driver in a slower car has no chance to defend himself against a poorer driver in a faster car when they go roaring past in the DRS zone. So it makes F1 even more about the car, and even less about the drivers. It also makes races more boring, as seen in Singapore, because the DRS zone allows faster cars to pretty much automatically make their way to the front of the race.

So by increasing overtaking, the DRS is actually making F1 more boring. Let's take an example. If, for instance, Sebastian Vettel spun out in Suzuka and then got a drive-through penalty, that would be great news for Jenson Button, who's still contending for the title. Right? Wrong. Vetel would use the DRS to easily pass all the slower cars in front of him, and while he might not catch up with the frontrunners, he'd finish nicely in the points. By giving such a massive advantage to the faster cars, the DRS actually makes it much less likely that we'll see races with interesting results. Last year's season finale at Abu Dhabi would never have unfolded the way it did with DRS, as Alonso would just have opened up the rear wing and blasted past Vitali Petrov. It's no longer possible for drivers in slower cars to create upsets by defending well against a driver in a faster car, because of the DRS.

The DRS is terrible and it needs to go. The number of overtakes in a race is not a reliable indicator of the quality of the race, any more than, say, the number of goals scored is an indicator of the quality of a hockey game. When overtakes are devalued, they become meaningless, and when the system as a whole has a deleterious effect on the world championship as a whole, it's a net loss. Get rid of it.

FIA penalty system needs a re-think

Lewis Hamilton drove recklessly in last weekend's grand prix, colliding with both Felipe Massa and Pastor Maldonado and taking both of them out of the competition.

Autosport.com: Hamilton handed post-race penalty

Lewis Hamilton has been given a penalty for having caused a collision with Pastor Maldonado in the Monaco Grand Prix.

The Briton, who got his qualifying time deleted on Saturday and got a drive-through penalty for causing a collision with Felipe Massa during the race, was handed another drive-through post-race after his crash with Williams driver Maldonado.

The McLaren star was given the penalty after the race, which means 20 seconds were added to his final time. Hamilton keeps his sixth place despite the penalty.

Hamilton was very critical of the stewards after the race, labelling their decisions as a "joke".

"Out of six races, I've been to the stewards five times. It's a joke," Hamilton told the BBC. "It's an absolute frickin' joke."

He went on to blame the other drivers for his collisions with them. Once again, whatever happens to Lewis Hamilton is someone else's fault. For what it's worth, both penalties were well deserved: in neither case did Hamilton have a real shot at overtaking, but he tried to force his way through and caused a crash. If that isn't clearly against the rules, I don't know what is, but it isn't surprising that Hamilton, a hypocrite and long-time beneficiary of special treatment by the FIA, can't seem to understand that. I agree that this is a joke, but probably not the way he intended.

That isn't my point here, though. This has annoyed me before and it continues to do so now: Hamilton's drive-through penalty was converted, post-race, into a twenty second time penalty that didn't affect how he finished. I still can't grasp the thinking behind this. The stewards decided on the penalty after the race, knowing full well that it wouldn't affect the standings, because the seventh-place finisher was well over 20 seconds behind. This isn't the first time it's happened, either.

A penalty that doesn't have any effect isn't a penalty. In this case, as they've done before, the stewards are effectively choosing to not penalize Hamilton at all. I have a problem with this in general, no matter which driver it is, because effectively this means that if you commit a rule violation worthy of a drive-through penalty late enough in the race, there are no consequences. If the penalty is given early enough that it has to be served on the track, at least there's a chance that it'll affect the standings and the race; this way, nothing is accomplished.

These situations need to be handled differently; if a driver breaks the rules, they need to be penalized properly, not by changing a meaningless statistic. In this particular case, considering the reckless driving Hamilton was engaging in throughout the race, it's appalling that he won't be further penalized. Over the last few years, grid penalties have been handed down for much less. But not, of course, to Lewis Hamilton.

Sports notes

First, F1. Just last week, world champion Sir Stirling Moss said that Michael Schumacher's championships cheapen the F1 world championship, because he unsportingly won them instead of some more worthy British driver. Does anyone know whether Jackie Stewart is seriously ill, or does he just have the flu or something? Usually, when we're due for another staggeringly stupid statement from the British isles, it's Jackie Stewart saying someting moronic. The only explanation I can think of for Stirling Moss's lunacy is that Jackie Stewart is ill and they had to call someone else.

Delightfully, we'll have two Lotuses in F1 next year. Renault is selling their remaining stake in what used to be Benetton, and Genii Capital is selling a 25% share to Lotus Cars, a subsidiary of Proton who make the Lotus-branded road cars. The new team is going to be called Lotus Renault GP. Meanwhile, Tony Fernandez's Team Lotus will be running on Renault engines next year, so they'll be called Team Lotus Renault. To top it all off, both teams have announced they'll be going back to the classic black-and-gold Lotus colors.

It all makes perfect sense: four Lotus cars on the grid. With Toro Rosso, we already have four Red Bulls, and there are four silver cars with Mercedes engines. Maybe Ferrari could buy a share in Sauber so we'd get four red cars with Ferrari engines too?

On a happier note: the team orders ban is finally history (autosport.com). It's about time. The team order ban is a textbook example of a bad rule: it can't be enforced, and the only reason to have it is to maintain kayfabe. Good riddance.

**

Then, hockey. Seriously, ESPN America. Last week's games: New Jersey-Pittsburgh and Toronto-Pittsburgh. Over the last month or so, roughly every second game has been a Penguins game on FSN Pittsburgh. If there was another channel showing the NHL that I could get without buying a whole shebang of movie, golf and football channels, I would.

On the topic of the Pens, I could do a huge and potentially controversial post on a post-lockout staple: which is better, Ovechkin or Crosby? To be honest, I can't be bothered to. But there is one aspect of that I will address. Ever since the two guys made their league debuts, the received wisdom has been that Crosby is a more complete player and Ovechkin is a one-dimensional sniper.

If I did any hockey journalism in any capacity any more, I'd have to mince words about this, but as I don't, I can be honest. This idea isn't based on anything at all except the Canadian racist stereotype of European players. You can hear some variation of it pretty much every Saturday on CBC, but it's not like that guy's its only proponent. In the stereotype, Canadians are "team guys" who play a solid two-way game, and Europeans are selfish "skill guys" who are only in it for the money. Because Crosby is the current incarnation of Canadian hockey and the anointed "Next One", he must be a responsible, all-around player, and his Euro arch-rival Ovechkin must be a selfish sniper.

This is the only reason anyone can maintain that Crosby plays a two-way game and Ovechkin doesn't. Sure, Ovechkin regularly makes defensive plays that can perhaps be politely described as phlegmatic. The thing is, every time he does that, they show the clip as proof. Crosby does exactly the same thing, only you don't see those clips being shown over and over again. I've seen innumerable instances of Pittsburgh being scored on because Crosby turned the puck over in the offensive zone and sluggishly skated to the bench, giving up an odd-man rush to the other team simply because he couldn't be bothered to skate.

Don't believe me? Despite the fact that Crosby has a higher points per game average, Ovechkin has a higher career plus-minus and is in a totally different league in career takeaways. So if you look at the stats, Ovechkin is a better two-way player than Crosby. I'm sure that if someone went on TSN or CBC and said this, heads would explode all over Canada, because it can't be true. But those are the numbers.

Another way this manifests itself is this season, as Ovechkin has seemingly given up goal-scoring completely. He's still scoring a respectable number of points, and barely a week goes by without some hockey program discussing his "new-found" playmaking ability. Even Don Cherry ran an Ovechkin highlight where he passed to a teammate on an empty net rush, and claimed he's "learning to play the Canadian way".

It must really make doing those shows and writing those columns easier when you don't have to look at anyone's stats, or have any idea how they actually play. Ovechkin has never had less than 40 assists in a season, and usually finishes with well over 50. Some particularly observant people might even remember that Ovechkin not only had 50 goals as a rookie, but 50 assists as well, which is a rarer thing than you might think. And remember that this was on a team where he was single-handedly responsible for something like half of their goals. Sure, Ovechkin has matured over the years and plays a better all-around game; that doesn't mean he never played one before.

So in other words, what new-found ability? The idea that "Ovechkin doesn't pass", also propounded by the Finnish government TV channel's sainted play-by-play legend, is based purely on the imaginary stereotype of the Russian player as a sniper who only cares about scoring goals. Not even Kovalchuk actually plays like that, and he used to be a far purer sniper than Ovechkin.

Said anointed play-by-play guy thought it was amazing and a huge risk to have Ovechkin playing the point on the national team, as he's never played that position before. I'll leave any evaluation of his hockey savvy at that.

So in many ways, the Ovechkin-Crosby comparison tells you more about how we pick and choose information to fit our preconceived stereotypes than about the way the respective young men actually play hockey.

If you've watched Coach's Corner recently, you may have noticed how fond he is of quoting himself to prove how prescient he is, even if I hesitate to use such a big word in this context. On the subject of national stereotypes, how about somebody plays back all those times he screamed about how Brian Burke is going to fix Toronto by getting rid of all those villainous Euros and hiring good Canadian boys? Well, you got your North Americans: your Clarke MacArthurs and Phil Kessels, Komisareks, Beauchemins and Schenns. How's that working out again? It turns out that maybe Toronto's problems weren't caused by the nationality of their players. Of course, these days I believe he blames the nationality of the coach.

The trouble is that in general, we want sports to be a morality play. In general, we want sports to reward righteousness and punish wrongdoers. To the nationalist sport is even more important: sport is the crucible in which the nationalist's prejudices are put to the test and proved. The thing is, sport doesn't actually work like that, so the nationalist has to resort to selective perception. Otherwise it might turn out that his preconceived notions aren't supported by facts. As nationalists generally have quite a bit invested into their prejudices, and questioning them would mean questioning their very identity, what we end up with is a large number of people who are completely unwilling to actually see what's happening on the ice.

As much as I like watching sports, the one thing I deeply dislike, especially about team sports, is that they encourage groupthink. Watch any NESN broadcast and Andy Brickley and Mike Milbury will be happy to explain to you that when a Boston player runs an opposing forward head first into the boards from behind, it isn't a penalty and shouldn't be called. If the opposite happens, though, it just proves how villainous the other team really is. On other forums, one will hear that running up the score is a criminal, uncanadian thing to do, unless of course it's done by the Next One. A couple of weeks back, Milbury was kind enough to explain to us (on Versus) that a slewfoot by a Canadian player shouldn't be a penalty at all, while a slewfoot by a Russian player should result in a major penalty and suspension.

Of course, it gets even worse with national teams. Sports and nationalism go hand in hand, because nationalism requires groupthink; the proposal "my nation right or wrong" is, after all, fundamentally absurd. Only groupthink can make it palatable, and team sports are a very important way of teaching groupthink to children. If there ever was an argument against sports, that's it.

**

To finish on a different note, I'd like to propose a tentative quantitative definition for a dynasty in the NHL. The word gets thrown around a lot, especially about the Penguins, which is what brought it to my mind. I still remember a viewer poll on TSN some three or four years back. The talking heads had decided amongst themselves that the Penguins were a dynasty, and asked the viewers how many Cups the Pens would win in the next five or so years. The answers they got were 2-4. Remember that this is before they had won a single playoff series.

So I got to thinking: how would you go about defining a dynasty in the NHL? My proposal is this: four or more Cups in five years. That gives us as many as six dynasties:

Toronto Maple Leafs, 1945-51: five Cups in seven years ('45, 47-49, 51)
Montréal Canadiens, 1956-60: five Cups in five years
Montréal Canadiens, 1965-69: four Cups in five years
Montréal Canadiens, 1976-79: four Cups in four years
New York Islanders, 1980-83: four Cups in four years
Edmonton Oilers, 1984-88: four Cups in five years

Few other teams come close; certainly none since the Oilers qualify.

In my mind, to be a proper dynasty a team has to really dominate the league, like the Oilers, Isles and late 70's Habs did. If we try to quantify that, this is what I ended up with, and I think it works.

As an aside, we're currently in the longest stretch ever without the Cup being won by a Canadian team. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the previous longest streak of US winners was in 1936-41, with the Wings, Hawks, Bruins and Rangers winning six in a row until the Leafs brought the Cup to Canada.

It has now been seventeen years since a Canadian team won the Cup. As I find the racist stereotypes propounded by so many Canadian hockey pundits so relentlessly offensive, I have to admit that that does make me a bit happy.

The annual Brooks Orpik hypocrisy award

And now, the moment literally no-one has been waiting for: the annual Brook Orpik Hypocrisy Award!

**

Although this award was instituted for the NHL, hence the name, we feel it would be wrong to restrict it to just hockey. After all, this blog also follows F1.

Now, we could simply nominate Lewis Hamilton and the entire McLaren team for the ridiculous fiasco that was their holier-than-thou commentary on Ferrari's team orders at this year's German GP. Martin Whitmarsh said that McLaren would "never give team orders like Ferrari", and Hamilton agreed. He told the BBC that McLaren would never give team orders, and adding:

"I personally would not want to win the championship other than by winning it fairly."

Although you would apparently have been fine with winning one in a stolen car. And obviously when Heikki Kovalainen was told to let Hamilton past him at the 2008 German GP, that wasn't a team order, even though Kovalainen did tell Finnish media that he was ordered to let Hamilton pass. Funny how McLaren didn't get a fine for that, by the way. So based on what he's said, we expect him to turn in his 2008 driver's championship. Ha.

**

For another example, here's what our "favorite" driver had to say after the Chinese GP this year:

The Guardian: Lewis Hamilton's feud with Fernando Alonso simmers ahead of Spanish GP

The rivalry that has long existed between Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso has simmered again ahead of Sunday's Spanish grand prix.

Alonso last week made no secret of what he thought of Hamilton's moves in the Malaysian and Chinese grands prix that have resulted in him being labeled as "aggressive" by some of his fellow drivers.

Hamilton, though, has not missed the opportunity to respond. Assessing Alonso's passing manoeuvre on his Ferrari team-mate Felipe Massa in the pitlane in China, the 25-year-old was defiant.

"On the track you race and you overtake professionally and as cleanly as possible," said Hamilton. "I've never done that [Alonso's move], and it's definitely not in my nature to do what he did. That could have turned out really badly for Felipe. He could have been out of the race."

Sounds fair, doesn't it? In reality, what Alonso did was, as Hamilton said, dangerous and ill-advised, especially given that Massa is his team-mate. However, here's a reminder of what the Guardian didn't say.

USA Today: Hamilton, Vettel reprimanded in China

SHANGHAI — A chaotic Chinese Grand Prix prompted a post-race stewards' hearing and recriminations among several drivers following contentious incidents in the first half of the race.

The race featured two pitlane passing attempts -- one between teammates -- and a frightening first-lap crash that took out three drivers.

Stewards investigated the incident between McLaren's Lewis Hamilton and Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel after the pair almost collided on the entry to pitlane. After their stops, they raced wheel-to-wheel along the pitlane.

Both drivers received an official post-race reprimand for driving "in a dangerous manner."

"At the stop I was ahead; I don't know why he pulled to the left and was keen to touch me. I hoped I didn't get a puncture from that -- I don't really understand why he did that as I was a bit ahead of him and had the advantage anyway," Vettel said.

It was the second straight race Hamilton had been cautioned by stewards, after weaving to block a following car in Malaysia.

**

Hamilton had pulled off nearly exactly the same move in the same race. Finland's MTV3 remembered, but apparently the Grauniad wasn't paying that much attention. Given that Hamilton is known, and the way we've heard it, positively loathed on the paddock for his over-aggressive driving and complete disregard for the rules, the mere notion of him coming out and saying something like this is breathtaking. On top of that, the comments he made after the German GP are beyond hypocritical.

After all this, he's the undisputed winner of this year's Brooks Orpik Hypocrisy Award. His notion that "he's not that kind of guy" is a ridiculous lie, given that he did precisely the same thing himself. He obviously won't be turning in his 2008 world title, which by his own alleged standards he won unfairly, because team orders that favor him aren't team orders. We don't know if he's just plain delusional or what's wrong with him, but we do know he's just won this award.

**

The Brooks Orpik Hypocrisy Award is given by the writers of this blog to the athlete who makes the most preposterously hypocritical comment of the year.

Previous winners:

2009 - Brooks Orpik, Pittsburgh Penguins, NHL

Team orders

As I write this, the stewards are scrutinizing Fernando Alonso's win at the German GP. Team orders and so on.

Can we not get rid of this "team orders" stupidity already? F1 is a team sport. The constructors' championship, which determines the money teams get at the end of the season, is a team sport. In a situation like the one facing Ferrari at yesterday's GP, letting Alonso and Massa change places means that the driver who's still in the hunt for the drivers' championship gets more points, but the team gets the same amount. It just makes sense. Why, in the name of "sport", do we have rules that try to force teams to make irrational decisions?

Get rid of the whole rule. It doesn't actually affect anything, and only adds some camouflage to what teams are doing anyway. If the way Alonso won at Germany is wrong, then isn't Red Bull giving Vettel Webber's front wing also wrong? There was no penalty on that. What about when McLaren ran Kovalainen's car with a huge fuel load and gave Hamilton a more competitive amount of fuel? Wasn't that wrong too?

If teams want to favor one driver over another, they're going to. For teams to favor a driver who's way ahead of his teammate in the standings not only makes sense, but is universally acknowledged to be the way things are done in F1. Why do we have a silly rule that forces teams to pretend they're not doing what they're doing?

It's things like this that make F1 look so stupid.

**

What's just funny is Red Bull's Christian Horner.

Autosport: Horner: Ferrari move clear team orders

Horner was adamant that Red Bull would not have acted in the same manner.

"No, we let our drivers race," he said. "Massa's still in this championship, or maybe he's signed a contract that says he's a number two driver, but I think that it's wrong for the sport."

Remember that one race when Vettel and Webber crashed? When Mark Webber's engineer told him that "Sebastian is faster"? Using the exact same words as Ferrari's "clear team orders"? Of course, Red Bull would never do something they already did this season.

Is Horner going to turn into another holier-than-thou "we would never do that, except when we do" manager? As if we need another one.

Safety car stupidity

After the Valencia debacle, the FIA changed the safety car rules, and then changed them again.

The good part is that nothing like the Valencia fiasco should happen again, as the safety car will now always be deployed in front of the race leader. The bad part is that they're essentially fixing the wrong thing. The problem with what happened at Valencia was that the penalty for overtaking the safety car was a joke. Silverstone showed quite nicely that in many ways, a drive-through penalty is horrible. Alonso's drive-through knocked him clear out of the points, while Hamilton's drive-through didn't affect his standing at all.

The penalty for overtaking the safety car, or reckless driving behind a safety car that causes an accident, should be a black flag. Oddly, both my examples were perpetrated by the same guy. Both of them show a clear disregard for the rules in a situation that race control has deemed dangerous enough that a safety car has to be deployed. You already get disqualified for running a red light at the pits, so why on earth don't drivers get disqualified if they overtake the safety car?

F1: Lewis Hamilton still exempt from rules

The European GP in Valencia was a farce. In short, Lewis Hamilton overtook the safety car after it came out, and was penalized with a drive-through penalty twenty laps later.

Hamilton and his defenders insist the rules were applied properly. Given the ham-handed way the FIA writes its rules, that may well be so, but passing the safety car like Hamilton did is appalling. Not only is it dangerous to the driver and the track marshals, but it shows a total disregard of the rules. In Alonso's words, even a child knows you can't pass the safety car like that. Had, say, Kamui Kobayashi pulled a stunt like that, he would have been disqualified and probably had his racing license taken away from him. Not so with the golden boy.

Having done what he did, Hamilton was given a drive-through penalty, so late in the race that it didn't affect his standing. Whether the penalty was technically correct or not, here's what I can't accept. The stewards knew fully well that nearly all other drivers had suffered from the safety car except Hamilton. They knew that they were giving Hamilton a penalty that wouldn't affect his race at all, and they still gave it. So in effect, they are fully consciously rewarding Hamilton for breaking the rules. And this is a sport?

In Malaysia, Hamilton blatantly broke the rules by weaving in front of Renault's Vitaly Petrov. It's not a huge exaggeration to say that again, even a child knows that's against the rules. All Hamilton got was a "warning", or in other words, nothing. In the Chinese GP he nearly crashed into Sebastian Vettel in the pit lane, resulting in, again, a "warning". More on that one later. Now he overtakes the safety car and again, nothing. Does he really have a blank cheque to do anything on the track now?

I'll just quote the Runoff Area's Twitter feed; after stewarding like this, F1 satire is dead. How do you make fun of this stuff?

NHL and F1: where do the twain meet?

Another thing I really like is the visual display of information. I was watching the Malaysian GP and an NHL game on the same day, and it occurred to me that there probably aren't that many countries where you can easily follow both the NHL and Formula 1.

Here they are. In blue, countries that are home to an active NHL player. I'm not using the frankly moronic system the Hockey Hall of Fame uses, where players are ranked by their country of birth, but rather the country they are eligible to represent in international hockey. In red, countries that are represented in F1 by an active driver in the 2010 season.

So at the end of the day, the NHL and F1 only meet in Finland, Russia, Germany and Switzerland. As you can see, this is a more exclusive combination than one might think! The map also highlights how much of a northern hemisphere sport hockey is.

F1 season preview, sort of

It's almost here! The Bahrain GP is next Sunday, and in between playing Mass Effect 2 and, well, playing Mass Effect 2, I've been trying to wrap my head around the next F1 season. This isn't really so much a season preview as my attempt to figure out who's driving for which team, and what teams are going to be showing up for the GP.

This has been the most confusing F1 offseason I can remember, and I'm trying to make some sense out of it. First we were told there would be four new teams participating next season: Lotus, Campos, Manor and USF1. Then Manor became Virgin, USF1 dropped out, and Campos became the Hispania Racing Team, abbreviated HRT. In the meanwhile, BMW sold their team to Peter Sauber and the Russian Mafia, but despite the fact that it isn't owned by BMW any more, it's still called BMW Sauber. Then Toyota dropped out, but sold their F1 operations to a Serbian guy, who started a team named after himself, which really should have got Toyota's place on the grid, but didn't.

Confused yet? I know I am. For what it's worth, what confuses me most is Stefan GP not being allowed into the world championship. In a typical press release, via autosport.com:

"Having considered the various options, the FIA confirms that it is not possible for a replacement team to be entered for the Championship at this late stage," the FIA said.

"In the coming days the FIA will announce details of a new selection process to identify candidates to fill any vacancies existing at the start of the 2011 season."

It's really useless to try to figure out why anything happens in F1. For all we know, Bernie won't let them race because his ex-wife is from Yugoslavia. Also, he's totally dedicated to his new project, which involves a businessman from Qatar financing a Grand Prix on the Moon or something. Whatever the reason is, Stefan had cars and drivers ready, and as I understand things, would have been entitled to a spot on the grid as the inheritors of Toyota, but in the weird world of F1, they're barred from the grid. Maybe they would actually have been competitive...

Last time the FIA held a selection process, it included charming details such as forcing all the new teams to use Cosworth's rubbish engines, and not accepting any team that refused to. If anyone remembers Prodrive, this is the reason they're not on the grid.

**

Anyway, F1 politics is what it is. As far as I can tell, here's the teams and drivers for next season, in constructors' standings order from last season:

Mercedes GP
3. Michael Schumacher
4. Nico Rosberg

Red Bull
5. Sebastian Vettel
6. Mark Webber

McLaren
1. Jenson Button
2. Lewis Hamilton

Ferrari
7. Felipe Massa
8. Fernando Alonso

BMW Sauber
26. Pedro de la Rosa
27. Kamui Kobayashi

Williams
9. Rubens Barrichello
10. Nico Hülkenberg

Renault
11. Robert Kubica
12. Vitali Petrov

Force India
14. Adrian Sutil
15. Vitantonio Liuzzi

Toro Rosso
16. Sebastian Buemi
17. Jaime Alguersuari

New teams:

Lotus Racing
18. Jarno Trulli
19. Heikki Kovalainen

Hispania Racing F1 Team
20. Karun Chandhok
21. Bruno Senna

Virgin Racing
24. Timo Glock
25. Lucas di Grassi

**

All the unfamiliar names are GP2 drivers. There's a couple of new guys to look forward to. Last year, Nico Hülkenberg and Vitali Petrov tore up the GP2 series in an epic fight for the title, which Hülkenberg won. He's been pegged as the next Michael Schumacher, and there's a certain icy feel to his driving that is very reminiscient of Schumacher. Petrov, though, was my favorite driver to watch in GP2 last year, and I expect him to do well in F1, all things taken into account.

In my opinion, F1 drivers can be divided into two groups: combative and non-combative drivers. Some F1 drivers just have that fire in them, a willingness to take the fight to their rivals and drive for the win, not just trundle along for a finish in the points. All the great drivers had that fight. On the grid today, Schumacher and Alonso undoubtedly have it. Jenson Button never had it, and I still don't think he does. With all due respect to his driving abilities, which I do respect, I can't see any way he would have won last year's world title without the diffusor controversy. Felipe Massa is even more useless as a driver and a second driver because he has absolutely no fight in him. For that reason, I don't believe Massa will ever win a world title.

Two guys who have fight in abundance are Nico Rosberg and Robert Kubica, and Petrov fits right in. If the Renault car is even vaguely competitive this year, both Kubica and Petrov should do well. I'm really looking forward to seeing the two of them compete!

**

I suppose I should make some kind of prediction about the results, but quite frankly, I haven't been following things nearly closely enough. It was only when I did this roundup that I actually got the teams and drivers straight in my head, so there's no way I have an intelligent opinion on, for instance, who's going to do well at Bahrain. It'll be interesting to see if the new teams are really as hopeless as everyone expects them to be. Mercedes has kept saying they're not competitive, even though everyone expects them to be, and McLaren are trying to repeat last year's diffusor trick with a questionable rear wing, so maybe we'll have some proper controversy right at the start. There are several obvious rivalries to look forward to as well, including the return of Schumacher vs. Alonso, the two McLaren drivers and the two Ferrari drivers. I don't think Massa will take well to being number 2, nor Alonso to having a totally useless no. 2.

One thing to look forward to, by the way, are Red Bull's record-breaking two-second pit stops. I can't wait to see one!

Crashgate

Well, Crashgate is mostly over with Renault receiving a suspended ban and Briatore & Symonds banned from F1.

And, as expected, Alonso gets away with nothing. Obviously he, the number one driver of his team, had no idea what was going on. Obviously he went into last year's Singapore GP with a completely uncompetitive strategy for no reason. Obviously.

Former F1 world champion Keke Rosberg put it very nicely in an interview with Finland's MTV3: "Apparently Alonso's a lot stupider than any of us thought. He's a world champion, and he has no idea what's going on in his team."

As of today, Fernando has won 21 F1 races. Of these, one was won due to his teammate crashing on purpose, and shouldn't count toward the results, but does. Of course, four of them were won with the tactical advantage based on stolen Ferrari data that McLaren was fined and disqualified from the constructors championship for, and shouldn't count, but do. So he's won 21 races, 15 of them fairly. Probably.

On the other hand, Hamilton has won ten races; four with the car that was disqualified from the constructors' championship. He's also world champion, on points from a race that was fixed by Renault. If the results from last year's Singapore GP were disqualified, as they should be, Felipe Massa would be world champion.

So, Fernando has 21 wins*, and Hamilton is a former world champion**. Felipe Massa has zero world titles***.

How many more footnotes do we have to add before someone at the FIA or elsewhere decides that F1 is going to be a sport, not sports entertainment?

Ye be banning Alonso from F1

So, Renault finally came clean on Crashgate. They've now admitted Nelson Piquet were ordered to crash just after Fernando Alonso's pit stop in last year's Singapore Grand Prix, securing a win for Alonso. Ahoy! Team principal Flavio Briatore and head engineer Pat Symonds have both resigned, and on Monday, ye FIA will be doling out penalties. Yarr!

To start with, Flavio Briatore needs nothing less than a lifetime ban from ye sport. Yarr! Not only be this far from ye first time he's been on ye shadier side of things, but his behaviour when ye allegations came to light were appalling. Which he denies everything and basically calls his driver a queer in ye world media, only to admit everything and resign a week later. I'm sorry, what? Last week they were all lies, and besides, that guy with ye long hair be a faggot.

My two cents' worth: ban Alonso from F1 for good. As far as Crashgate be concerned, there be no way Alonso didn't know exactly what were being planned. Avast, ye scurvy dog! He not only went along with it, but kept his mouth shut and celebrated his win. He's Renault's anointed number one driver; it would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that he had no idea what were being planned, and happily went into ye race with a deliberately weak strategy without so much as a nudge and a wink from someone.

Remember, this be ye same guy who were proven to have cheerfully collaborated in Spygate. He and Pedro de la Rosa quite happily trafficked in information stolen from Ferrari, and Alonso only came forward with it to get back at Ron Dennis. Dennis has since left F1, at least in an active role; now it looks like Alonso's sunk Briatore as well.

Okay, maybe it be a coincidence that one driwer benefited from and were deeply personally involved in two of ye biggest F1 scandals of ye past decade. Or maybe it be not.

In my humble opinion, Alonso has demonstrated a continuing total disregard for rules, sportsmanship and basic honesty. It were scandalous enough that he, de la Rosa and Hamilton got away scot free from Spygate, despite overwhelming evidence that ye lot of them were involved with ye stolen Ferrari data at every stage, ye first two especially so. It beggars belief to imagine him getting away with Crashgate. Howewer, if there be something ye FIA be capable of, it be a monstrous travesty of justice.

In entertainment news, ye head of ye Spanish wing of FIA said Alonso be innocent and his win at Singapore be beyond dispute. He has a seat on ye world council. In related news, he's insane.

I just hope Alonso don't end up with Ferrari. Ye way things have been going so far, whoever Alonso signs with next be in for a session with ye FIA World Motorsport Council. Which I don't know what it'll be for, but his last two team chiefs have ended up in front of ye World Council and retired in disgrace. Why would ye next one be any different?

**

In other F1 news, it be been downright bizarre to follow our Finnish drivers' contract situations. In my opinion, no driver could have scored more points with a Ferrari car this season than Kimi Räikkönen, especially over ye last few races. His driving has been phenomenal. After last year's no-show, he's reminded us all of why he won ye world title.

On ye other hand, Heikki Kovalainen be making a very strong case for being ye complete logical opposite of former Finnish F1 driver Jyrki Järvilehto. Yar! JJ were always rubbish at qualifying, but drove well in ye race. Yarr! This year, Heikki seems to be settling into a comfortable method of surpassing himself in qualifying and then throwing it all away by being completely rubbish in ye race. Monza were a perfect example of Kovalainen in action. He had a brilliant qualifying: his car weighed some 20 tons more than Hamilton's, but he were still ridiculously close to Hamilton's time throughout qualifying. Then ye wrong tire strategy, combined with an unbelievably bad first lap, destroyed his race.

Given all this, it were stupefying to hear ye news from Monza. Yar! McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh assured Finnish telewision that Heikki were very close to a contract extension with McLaren, while Ferrari point-blank refused to confirm that Räikkönen would be driving for Ferrari next year. I'm sorry, ye seem to have gotten them mixed up.

For what it be worth, I consider ye rumors that Räikkönen won't drive for Ferrari next year ludicrous. Yarr! Ye amount of money it would take to buy out his contract be just silly, and I don't see any way it could be worth it. Of course, that don't mean they won't do it, but it still don't make any sense. If anyone really thinks that Alonso, or Massa for that matter, would have had a stronger season than Räikkönen did this year in ye same car, they're grossly underestimating Kimi and overestimating Alonso.

Still, who knows? If there be one thing I know about F1 it be that anything can happen, whether it makes sense or not. So never say never.

Ban Alonso from F1

So, Renault finally came clean on Crashgate. They've now admitted Nelson Piquet was ordered to crash just after Fernando Alonso's pit stop in last year's Singapore Grand Prix, securing a win for Alonso. Team principal Flavio Briatore and head engineer Pat Symonds have both resigned, and on Monday, the FIA will be doling out penalties.

To start with, Flavio Briatore needs nothing less than a lifetime ban from the sport. Not only is this far from the first time he's been on the shadier side of things, but his behaviour when the allegations came to light was appalling. He denies everything and basically calls his driver a queer in the world media, only to admit everything and resign a week later. I'm sorry, what? Last week they were all lies, and besides, that guy with the long hair is a faggot.

My two cents' worth: ban Alonso from F1 for good. As far as Crashgate is concerned, there's no way Alonso didn't know exactly what was being planned. He not only went along with it, but kept his mouth shut and celebrated his win. He's Renault's anointed number one driver; it would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that he had no idea what was being planned, and happily went into the race with a deliberately weak strategy without so much as a nudge and a wink from someone.

Remember, this is the same guy who was proven to have cheerfully collaborated in Spygate. He and Pedro de la Rosa quite happily trafficked in information stolen from Ferrari, and Alonso only came forward with it to get back at Ron Dennis. Dennis has since left F1, at least in an active role; now it looks like Alonso's sunk Briatore as well.

Okay, maybe it's a coincidence that one driver benefited from and was deeply personally involved in two of the biggest F1 scandals of the past decade. Or maybe it isn't.

In my humble opinion, Alonso has demonstrated a continuing total disregard for rules, sportsmanship and basic honesty. It was scandalous enough that he, de la Rosa and Hamilton got away scot free from Spygate, despite overwhelming evidence that the lot of them were involved with the stolen Ferrari data at every stage, the first two especially so. It beggars belief to imagine him getting away with Crashgate. However, if there's something the FIA is capable of, it's a monstrous travesty of justice.

In entertainment news, the head of the Spanish wing of FIA said Alonso is innocent and his win at Singapore is beyond dispute. He has a seat on the world council. In related news, he's insane.

I just hope Alonso doesn't end up with Ferrari. The way things have been going so far, whoever Alonso signs with next is in for a session with the FIA World Motorsport Council. I don't know what it'll be for, but his last two team chiefs have ended up in front of the World Council and retired in disgrace. Why would the next one be any different?

**

In other F1 news, it's been downright bizarre to follow our Finnish drivers' contract situations. In my opinion, no driver could have scored more points with a Ferrari car this season than Kimi Räikkönen, especially over the last few races. His driving has been phenomenal. After last year's no-show, he's reminded us all of why he won the world title.

On the other hand, Heikki Kovalainen is making a very strong case for being the complete logical opposite of former Finnish F1 driver Jyrki Järvilehto. JJ was always rubbish at qualifying, but drove well in the race. This year, Heikki seems to be settling into a comfortable method of surpassing himself in qualifying and then throwing it all away by being completely rubbish in the race. Monza was a perfect example of Kovalainen in action. He had a brilliant qualifying: his car weighed some 20 tons more than Hamilton's, but he was still ridiculously close to Hamilton's time throughout qualifying. Then the wrong tire strategy, combined with an unbelievably bad first lap, destroyed his race.

Given all this, it was stupefying to hear the news from Monza. McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh assured Finnish television that Heikki was very close to a contract extension with McLaren, while Ferrari point-blank refused to confirm that Räikkönen would be driving for Ferrari next year. I'm sorry, you seem to have gotten them mixed up.

For what it's worth, I consider the rumors that Räikkönen won't drive for Ferrari next year ludicrous. The amount of money it would take to buy out his contract is just silly, and I don't see any way it could be worth it. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't do it, but it still doesn't make any sense. If anyone really thinks that Alonso, or Massa for that matter, would have had a stronger season than Räikkönen did this year in the same car, they're grossly underestimating Kimi and overestimating Alonso.

Still, who knows? If there's one thing I know about F1 it's that anything can happen, whether it makes sense or not. So never say never.

Axis powers celebrate F1 win

(with apologies to the Runoff Area)

The Axis powers scored a potentially decisive victory over the Allies in Belgium last weekend, as Finland, Italy and Germany took the podium at the Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. The highest-placing Allied driver, Mark Webber of the Australian Imperial Force, only came in ninth.

The F1 series, a global conflict being stage-managed by a diminutive man with dictatorial powers and funny hair, will next break out in Italy one week from now. Britain's Jenson Button leads the championship, with the Pact of Steel of Rubens Barrichello and Sebastian Vettel not far behind.

Despite near-universal agreement that Kimi Räikkönen won the race, the Finnish government has strongly denied participating in F1. "Mr. Räikkönen was not driving in the Belgian Grand Prix," Finnish foreign ministry spokesman Dr. Korhonen insisted. "He was driving a separate Grand Prix series and merely happened to find himself on the same track as the other drivers. This was pure coincidence. Any suggestion that Finnish drivers are participating in Formula One are false, and stem from an inability to understand Finland's unique strategic position." McLaren's PR department supported the Finnish government, openly scoffing at reports of a second Finnish driver in the race.

This year, the constructors' championship is firmly in Allied hands, although their lead in the drivers' series is not secure. French team Renault won two consecutive drivers' championships before surrendering, leaving the series a free-for-all with consecutive Axis and Allied victories in the drivers' series and an Axis-dominated constructors' series.

The strategic landscape of F1 is set to change next year with the United States entering the conflict, but hopes for a strong initial showing are not high. The United States team is widely considered to be inexperienced, and is expected to take time to fully mobilize their potential. Until USF1's application to join the F1 series, US motorsport had been governed by the Monroe Doctrine, limiting F1 to a maximum of two races in North America and restricting American drivers to the isolationist Champ Car imitation series and that thing where they drive around ovals.

Also in the wake of the Belgian GP, Pakistan's Minister of Defence (below) has accused India of destabilizing the region after Force India took their first podium. Minister Turgidson claims that the success of the Indian team has led to the creation of a dangerous "motorsports gap".

Pakistan is responding to what the Minister of Defence called "irresponsible Indian escalation" by founding several kart racing series, but UN officials are trying to broker a strategic racing limitation treaty to stop a "motorsports race" between the two countries.

Meanwhile, reports that South Korea has secured funding for its 2010 Grand Prix did not seem to concern North Korean representatives. They scoffed at the decadent practice of driving cars, pointing out that North Korea has no cars, or indeed anything motorized whatsoever, and is still the world's third-largest economy, with a higher standard of living than Japan. A reporter who questioned their figures was shot. Also, North Korean representatives pointed out that the Great Leader, Kim Jong-il, had previously set a lap time of 1:44.82 around the Spa-Francorchamps circuit, a full two seconds faster than Sebastian Vettel's fastest lap in this year's Grand Prix, and furthermore, the Great Leader set his time on foot.

The next race is set for Sunday, September 13th, pending an FIA investigation into possible French use of Brazilian kamikaze pilots in last year's series. By international accord, the practice of fielding a completely inept second driver for the sole purpose of causing destruction on the track is permitted only for the now defunct Super Aguri team.

Luca Badoer

(with apologies to Hugh Laurie)

History
My name will go down in F1 history
For qualifying in last place twice consecutively
I am worse than any Ferrari driver in
History

1863
I last drove an F1 car in 1863
By Monza I will be history
Why did they let me drive at all? Well, I guess it's just a
Mystery

Bernie Ecclestone and Hitler

This explains so much.

The Times: Hitler? He got things done, says Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One chief, said yesterday that he preferred totalitarian regimes to democracies and praised Adolf Hitler for his ability to “get things done”.

In an outspoken interview with The Times, the 78-year-old billionaire chastised contemporary politicians for their weakness and extolled the virtues of strong leadership.

Mr Ecclestone said: “In a lot of ways, terrible to say this I suppose, but apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not, he was in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done.

“In the end he got lost, so he wasn’t a very good dictator because either he had all these things and knew what was going on and insisted, or he just went along with it . . . so either way he wasn’t a dictator.” He also rounded on democracy, claiming that “it hasn’t done a lot of good for many countries — including this one [Britain]”.

Instead, Mr Ecclestone endorsed the concept of a government based on tyranny.

“Politicians are too worried about elections,” he said. “We did a terrible thing when we supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He was the only one who could control that country. It was the same [with the Taleban]. We move into countries and we have no idea of the culture. The Americans probably thought Bosnia was a town in Miami. There are people starving in Africa and we sit back and do nothing but we get involved in things we should leave alone.”

Has he been to one of Max Mosley's parties, or what?

I don't really know what to say. Basically I agree completely with one of the responses further down in the article:

"Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, said: “Mr Ecclestone is either an idiot or morally repulsive. Either he has no idea how stupid and offensive his views are or he does and deserves to be held in contempt by all decent people.”"

I think that's completely fair.

**

Any history of F1 is going to make interesting reading. For a while now, F1 has basically been run by the son of Britain's most notorious Fascist leader, himself notorious for his Nazi-themed sex parties, and an angry short man who thinks democracy is bad for his country and admires Hitler.

It's like no other sport in the world!

Martin Whitmarsh and Liegate

McLaren's head jefe Martin Whitmarsh has spoken on the Liegate scandal. This is what he had to say to the Mirror:

The reality is that there is an agenda here: some people are out to get us.

Can I just remind everyone that this is the scandal where McLaren were caught brazenly lying to the Australian GP stewards to get Lewis Hamilton one additional championship point? And this is what he has to say?

I quote him to reinforce the point I made in my previous post. The entire organization is either delusional or totally corrupt. If a normal person committed a crime and then reacted by claiming there's a conspiracy out to get him, they wouldn't be classed as normal much longer.

I wonder if Mercedes will get tired of all this rubbish, especially with Brawn looking like a more eligible and less dishonest British affiliate.

Diffusors, diffusors, diffusors

As expected, and as I predicted, diffusors are legal. Now we can finally get on with the F1 season.

Also, Ferrari moved their chief tactician to other tasks inside the organization, or whatever is the polite way of saying he's out. It's the right decision, and should go a long way toward fixing their problems. For my money, without the incredible tactical cockups of the last two GPs, Ferrari would have at least some points in the season. The way it looks now, winning either title is out of their grasp, but at least they can finish respectably, hopefully ahead of, say, BMW. Or at least ahead of McLaren.

Speaking of McLaren, whew. In my opinion, "liegate" is just the latest manifestation of a corrupt organization. It should have been clear to everyone two seasons ago with "Spygate" that McLaren, as an organization, is hopelessly dishonest and corrupt. Ron Dennis leaving didn't change the fundamental atmosphere of dishonesty in the team. The fact that Dave Ryan can go to the race stewards and blatantly lie to them, and even co-opt the driver involved, when both of them know perfectly well that they're lying, speaks to the moral fibre of the organization. The fact that their superiors then try to cover it up just tells us that the rot goes all the way to the top.

In my opinion, barring McLaren from F1 would do the sport a world of good. Drastic measures are needed before they change the way they operate, and clearly the disqualification from the manufacturers' series and the honking fine for Spygate weren't nearly enough to make them change their ways. The whole team is rotten.

**

The most bizarre commentary on the whole affair was given by Adrian Sutil, for a Dutch racing magazine. Here's what he had to say, courtesy of forumula1.net:

Adrian Sutil has spoken out in defence of Lewis Hamilton, saying that the punishments he receives could be a manifestation of racism. The Force India driver wrote in his weekly column for a Dutch magazine that he was mystified by the number of penalties the world champion appears to get.

“I have no idea how he (Hamilton) has got so many punishments. Slowly you start to ask yourself why it always happens to him. Is it his skin colour?” reads the article, in the Dutch magazine ”Formula 1 Race Report”.

Given that everyone knows what happened at the Australian GP, it is unbelievably disgusting that Sutil would try to play the race card. In my opinion, it shows a total disconnect from reality to claim that Hamilton has been penalized too much. On the contrary, especially in his first season, Hamilton got away with breaking the rules constantly.

So, it turns out that Adrian Sutil is an idiot. We learned something today!

Malaysian GP thoughts

So, the fifth half-point race of F1 history was run, and it was a good one.

Let's get the negatives out of the way first. Most importantly, Ferrari's tactics guy, Luca Baldiseri I believe, needs to sit out the next GP and think about what he's been up to. Tactically the weekend was an unspeakable disaster for Ferrari. First Massa doesn't make it to Q2 (!) because of a tactical error, then the fiasco of Kimi's tire choices. All of them were wrong, first going on wet tires too early, then switching to intermediates too late. Massa also pitted on consecutive laps, first switching to intermediates too late and having to return for full wets.

Ferrari are just having an awful season, and some of the mistakes they're making are so boneheaded that something needs to be done. It's like last year all over again, only even worse.

Heads should roll. So far, the new regime at Ferrari has lost one world title by a single point, which they could have easily had without the monumental pit-lane cockups of their late season, and started this season with zero points in two GPs. They're dead last in constructors' standings, behind Force India. If the same shit goes on at China, someone needs to be fired. I'd rather they were fired now.

Kimi's contract is up after this season, while Massa is signed through 2010. Of the two, I'd rather get rid of Massa, but if the whole organization stays this dysfunctional, some choices need to be made. Kimi isn't under contract for next year, and neither is Nico Rosberg. Someone should think about that some.

**

To move on to the positives: at least McLaren only has one point so far. Heikki Kovalainen is officially having the worst start of the entire grid, with the safety car completing more laps than him. Heikki is also in a contract year, and what better way to start it than this?

On the whole, though, what a season. Brawn is still fantastic, but Toyota and Red Bull look like they're going to give them a run for their money. This is all the more impressive because the Red Bull car doesn't even have a magic diffusor.

Yesterday's race was hugely entertaining, with lots of battles for position and overtaking. Full marks for the new aerodynamics, as clearly overtaking is far easier this year. Heck, at this rate, the Hungarian GP might not suck.

**

If you're wondering, in case the diffusor appeal is succesful and Brawn, Toyota and Williams are disqualified, then the Malaysian results look like this:

1. Nick Heidfeld (5 points)
2. Mark Webber (4 points)
3. Lewis Hamilton (3 points)
4. Felipe Massa (2.5 points)
5. Sebastien Bourdais (2 points)
6. Fernando Alonso (1.5 points)
7. Nelson Piquet (1 point)
8. Kimi Räikkönen (0.5 points)

Here, then, are the updated alternative championship points, depending on the diffusor appeal.

Drivers' championship:

Jenson Button: 15 or 0
Rubens Barrichello: 10 or 0
Jarno Trulli: 8.5 or 0
Timo Glock: 8 or 0
Nick Heidfeld: 4 or 9
Fernando Alonso: 4 or 11.5
Nico Rosberg: 3.5 or 0
Sebastien Buemi: 2 or 8
Mark Webber: 1.5 or 6
Lewis Hamilton: 1 or 3
Sebastien Bourdais: 1 or 8
Adrian Sutil: 0 or 5
Felipe Massa: 0 or 2.5
Giancarlo Fisichella: 0 or 3
Kazuki Nakajima: 0
Sebastian Vettel: 0 or 1
Nelson Piquet: 0 or 1
Kimi Räikkönen: 0 or 0.5

So, if the diffusors are ruled illegal, the world championship standings after, erm, 1.5 races are as follows:

Drivers:

1. Fernando Alonso (11.5 points)
2. Nick Heidfeld (9 points)
3. Sebastien Buemi (8 points)
4. Sebastien Bourdais (8 points)
5. Mark Webber (6 points)
6. Adrian Sutil (5 points)
7. Lewis Hamilton (3 points)
8. Giancarlo Fisichella (3 points)
9. Felipe Massa (2.5 points)
10. Nelson Piquet (1 point)
11. Sebastian Vettel (1 point)
12. Kimi Räikkönen (0.5 points)

Constructors:

1. Toro Rosso (16 pts)
2. Renault (12 pts)
3. BMW (9 pts)
4. Force India (8 pts)
5. Red Bull (7 pts)
6. McLaren (3 pts)
7. Ferrari (3 pts)
t-8. Brawn GP (0 pts)
t-8. Williams (0 pts)
t-8. Toyota (0 pts)