Michael Schumacher wins the race from the pits!

                                                 Michael Schumacher's last lap was in the pit-lane                             Image Courtesy - Daily mail 

The race at Silverstone is always nostalgic. It is at this very circuit the first race of the modern F1 championships was held on 13^th May 1950. British Grand Prix over the years have been hosted by other circuits and personally this remains my favourite British circuit among the others.

In this post, I would not be writing about Silverstone or its history or its struggles to stay relevant in the modern business of Formula One. Instead, I would like to look back on a 'wet' afternoon in 1998 when the race leader pitted on the last lap and yet emerged victorious. Protests were lodged by McLaren-Mercedes and the final verdict didn't alter the results of the Grand Prix. Instead it cost the jobs of the three stewards who awarded the penalty - unclear and ill-timed.

McLaren Mercedes was the car to beat. Ferrari was close and yet so far. In the eight races prior to the British Grand Prix that season, McLaren had won five (Mika Hakkinen four out of them) and Ferrari had three. If at all, the only consolation was that - the last two races were won by Ferrari and Michael Schumacher. Ferrari was not a force to reckon with at all - it was Michael Schumacher who drove not just the car but also the team forward ever since he took the seat in 1996.

PRE-RACE  

McLaren cars were the quickest on all the three practice sessions and on the pre-race warm-up. Mika Hakkinen courtesy of a swift lap put his team on pole ahead of his immediate rival Michael Schumacher.

With heavy rains on the race day morning, the track was not completely dry and this prompted many of the teams to start the race with intermediate tyres. The two Stewarts took the brave decision to start with dry tyres!

THE RACE

There was no major shakeup at the top for the first 12 laps of the race barring for David Coulthard moving to the second position - a move aided by the unsurprising choice of Schumacher and Ferrari to go with a dry set-up, hoping the track to dry as the race progressed. Then Michael Schumacher clocks in a stunner of a lap, 1.6 seconds quicker than any other car on a track that was starting to get wet with dark clouds looming around the 5.89 km circuit. These harsh conditions of wind and wet track made driving a little difficult as the first of the casualties happened to be Damon Hill on lap 13 and Heinz Harald Frentzen two laps later.

RAIN, RAIN - WHY YOU BACK AGAIN?

Rain upset the strategies of all the teams forcing the drivers to make an unscheduled pit stops. From lap 18 onwards, the pit lane saw a parade of cars making their way in to make this change - some like McLaren on Bridgestone and few other like Ferrari on Goodyear. Most of them braved the track with intermediate tyres (Michael Schumacher and David Coulthard) while Mika Hakkinen was given a fully-threaded wet weather tyres.

DRAMA

Up until the lap 35, Mika Hakkinen controlled the race and drove around the circuit comfortably than most others could manage. Coulthard had to win the race to keep his championship alive managed to put in two stunning laps to catch Hakkinen. The track became wet with a fresh round of downpour and in a moment of frowziness while overtaking a back-marker, Coulthard slid off the track and off he went on to the gravel. David Coulthard retired from the race on lap 37.

Mika Hakkinen having the advantage of wet-weather tyres had built a lead in excess of 40 seconds to the now second placed Michael Schumacher. Was this lead under the treacherous weather conditions enough? It sure was, unless you make any mistakes!

SAFETY CAR

Mika Hakkinen had a 'heartbeat moment' when his car on lap 42 turned 360 degrees at the high speed exiting corner 'Bridge'. He lost control for few seconds before recovering and turning the car on the circuit in the right direction - what reflex!. A deficit of 10 seconds would not damage his chances of victory, though there were concerns if his machinery and aerodynamic parts were intact.

Safety car was deployed to aid the drivers on track. Yes, it was such a race that - by the end of it all, only nine cars out of twenty-two were on track when the chequered flag was waved. Unsurprisingly, nine of those thirteen cars were as a result of 'slippery' track conditions.

The advantage built up by Hakkinen went in vain as Michael Schumacher and him were separated by a lapped Benetton car. On lap 49, the safety car went into the pits. Two laps later, Hakkinen straight-lined his car at Beckets - which put Schumacher into the lead and he was away! The damage caused by that spin on lap 42 was clearly visible as Hakkinen soon came under pressure from the second Ferrari of Eddie Irvine.

MELODRAMA

While Michael was leading the race, behind the scenes at the steward's control room there were discussions surrounding his overtake manoeuvre (to lap) on Alexander Wurz's Benetton on lap 43 - under the stationary yellow flag (safety car period). Normally in such cases back then, the penalty verdict must be informed to the team (in this case Ferrari) within 25 minutes of the time of the incident under investigation. The trio - Canada's Roger Peart, India's Nazir Hoosein and Britain's Howard Lapsley took about 24 minutes to make the decision.

The decision of the penalty was handwritten and it stated '10 seconds penalty' to Michael Schumacher. It was brought to the notice of Ferrari seven minutes after the decision was taken by the three stewards. The verdict did not specify if the penalty was a 'stop-go' (Article 57C) or whether 10 seconds would be added to Schumacher's time post race (Article 57E). To top it all, the official who delivered the note to the Ferrari did not know which rule was to be enforced.

While all this confusion was going on, the race was reaching its climax with just about two laps to go. Ferrari pit-crew were ready but were waiting for the instructions. Keeping in mind of the ramifications of the ignored penalty at the 1994 British Grand Prix (Schumacher later disqualified for the same driving for Benetton), Ferrari did not want to take any chances. Having a lead in excess of twenty seconds coming onto the last lap - he entered the pits to take the stop-go penalty. In doing so, he had to cross the 'start/finish' line to enter the Ferrari pit-lane. Michael Schumacher won the British Grand Prix. With-in minutes after the race, the stewards confirmed - they had applied Article 57E.

THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED....

McLaren were disappointed and wasted no time to appeal the decision. Technically, article 57E applies only if the incident took place in the last 12 laps - which clearly was not the case. McLaren argued that it was a clear case of 'stop-go' penalty. The hearing was called at the FIA International Court of Appeal before the next race at Austria which was scheduled to start in fortnight's time.

After hearing out F1 race director Charlie Whiting, his deputy Herbie Blash and the three stewards, the World Council concluded that - the stewards applied the wrong rule in the situation and failed to communicate their decisions as per the regulations. The three stewards accepted the verdict and gave up their licences.

 Ferrari could rejoice as Michael Schumacher finally managed to win at Silverstone. It was his first of the three victories he managed to secure at this historic venue. Murray Walker, veteran F1 commentator commented at the end of the race aptly - " I have never, ever in the years I have been watching Grand Prix racing seen a finish like that - it is absolutely unprecedented". And he start commentating in 1949!

TO END IT.....

Whether or not, Michael Schumacher would watch this year's British GP - he can never forget the memories from the Silverstone circuit. It was here in 1999, he suffered a major blow - an injury which made him sit out most part of the 1999 World Championship and eventually cost him that year's driver's crown. He bounced back from that setback and what a comeback he has had after that. And hoping his bounce-back ability is the same this time around as he fights to lead a normal life.  

A case for 'strategy breaks' in football?

I managed to witness what I had never seen previously on a football field - a game of football being stopped midway for a 'cooling break'. Surely, it was not the first time breaks have been used at the football fields and surely it won't be the last time. It happens in T20 domestic cricket in the name of 'strategy' time out for 150 seconds. 

Moving forward, what do we make of this cooling break? Will this be seen as an excellent marketing strategy and open up a window for advertisement - specifically suited around cooling breaks? or what I saw yesterday was a one-off instance where heat did disrupt the players and most importantly 'the match officials'?

Let me look at it the other way. Louis van Gaal utilised these 'breaks' to communicate his strategy to the Dutch players instead of shouting behind the line in a hope that 'his messages carry the distance'. Instead of having just a half-time break, he had 3 time outs (so to speak) to re-work on his strategies. Since the time Mexico took the lead, the team in orange were chasing the game. Did these breaks help bring back the focus to the team? or did it upset the rhythm for the Mexicans?

What would be the future of these 'cooling breaks'? Will this case be pursued further by the marketing team at FIFA to repackage it as 'strategy breaks' and through this create a new dimension to the sport, thereby modernising the traditional flow game? or will it be just too much of a change for FIFA to create this 'break' twice in a match played for 90 minutes (which has already extra minutes added at the end of each half). Plus, will it provide a breathing space for spectators to not miss the action while they must go attend to nature's call or buy a drink or a snack!

This game is after all involves the administration and guardian of the game FIFA, the players and match officials, the sponsors and most importantly the spectators who consume the content, the drama which unfolds on the field.

Will there be a strategy breaks in football, moving forward? Only time will tell! 

HALLMARK OF A PERFECT TEAM IN FORMULA ONE

List of Winners and Runners up from the same F1 team in a season

The F1 season of 2014 has been all about one team so far. The German automobile giant Mercedes on their own have finally made it big after four years of being in the wilderness. Barring the Canadian GP (won by Daniel Ricciardo) the rest of the seven races have been won by either of two Mercedes drivers. This season so-far has shown all the signs that Mercedes will end up gathering more wins unless the likes of Red Bull and Ferrari make tremendous progress.

MARK OF A GREAT TEAM - I believe F1 is a team sport. However, when looked at the history of driver's championships it tends to point out not all winning drivers were the best. Some had the best machinery and a lot of the drivers came through owing to their individual brilliance and of course not to forget the team work behind the scenes. To me, a great team is one - which manages to win the driver's championships, secure the constructor's championship and have your second driver placed second in the driver's championship points tally at the end of the season. Simple evaluation isn't it?

WHAT DOES HISTORY OF F1 TELLS US - In each decade, there were teams that dominated the proceedings irrespective of who drove in them. In other cases, teams hired two of the best drivers available. The first F1 world championship had the winner Giuseppe Farina and Juan Manuel Fangio lined up in one team. The team benefitted overall. The constructor's championships were awarded from 1958 and since then very few teams managed to dominate the scene continuously. The fights were often between drivers from various teams than between team-mates. In some cases, there were clear demarcation as to who's numero uno and the second driver (Ferrari of recent times) and in other cases strong rivalry between the teammates (Senna and Prost). Nevertheless, the latter scenario is not sustainable in the long run and the first case is a weak one if the driver is not efficient and quick.

HOW MANY?

From the inception of world championships in 1950 till the 2013 season, there have been only 18 seasons where teams had both their drivers finish in top two. I have made a snapshot capturing the details of these years.

SUMMARY!

The way it stands at the moment, the season might end up being the 19th such occasion and first for this decade. Red Bull Racing who dominated the championship for the past four years never managed to secure the 2nd place in the drivers championships - though they had the best machinery. Ferrari in its prime (2000-2004) managed to win five constructor's title and driver's championship in a row. Yet, only in 2002 and 2004 we saw Rubens Barrichello finishing second at the end of the season.

It isn't all about team work - drivers get paid huge sums of amount for their talent and this individual skill sets combined with enthusiasm of the team has so far managed to win more championships than compared with teams winning the constructors championship along with top two finishers in the driver's championships. In short - the best car and two of the best drivers doesn't guarantee you success. As long as humans are involved - even what seems perfect combination theoretically it is far-fetched (most times) from being one practically.

THE CASE OF A MISSING LETTER - INDIA AT THE 1950 FOOTBALL WORLD CUP

In the past month and a half, the media - especially the sports section have turned all their attention to the world's sporting showpiece - FIFA World Cup. Analysis, predictions, history and many other elements are being churned out, leaving no corners at all. Much such news highlighted India's inability to qualify at this global event. The causes are plenty - but what I do know is that India had an opportunity to play at the World Cup in Brazil back in 1950.

Preparations were on till about a month's time when the Secretary General of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association), Dr. Ivo Schricker received a telegram from AIFF (All-India Football Federation)  stating its inability to participate in the World Cup and the same news to be informed to the Brazilian Organising Committee. There were no reasons given in that telegram. 

However, a letter addressed to FIFA was to follow explaining the reasons for India's late withdrawal. Was this letter written? If yes, where is this letter? For sure, this letter would debunk several theories surrounding the withdrawal. All one finds is a letter dated 15th June 1950 written to FIFA by AIFF "requesting two rulebooks for the federation use".

Playing barefoot, lack of funds, lack of interest, lack of training or was World Cup - a much smaller event involving 16 countries than compared with Summer Olympics which had 59 countries taking part at the 1948 London Olympics.

The 1948 Summer Olympics was the first truly international competition India took part post-independence. Indian football team or also known as 'All-India' from FIFA's official sanction back then showed its prowess playing barefoot. 

Since 1947, AIFF and FIFA have corresponded a lot of times leading up to the 1950 World Cup. I have written this article based on those correspondences interspersed with my opinions after having followed the history of this game for a while.

In early 1949, the organising committee and FIFA had selected 30 countries - out of which 16 teams would then be shortlisted leading up to the World Cup or Jules Rimet Trophy as it was called then. 'All-India' was part of this list and was one of the four countries from Asia.

AIFF in their preparations for the World Cup requested FIFA on 21st Dec 1949 about their qualifying matches in order to ascertain who among the Asian teams clubbed under Group 10 of qualifying matches would go through as a finalist for the main event. 

AIFF secretary Mr. Dutta Ray even talked about chartering a flight from Calcutta (now Kolkata) or Bombay (now Mumbai) to Brazil. AIFF had even plans to send the team 10 days in advance to Brazil and play few friendlies before the commencement of the tournament. AIFF also requested for approximate costs which would be incurred for accommodation purposes.

On the same day, Sir Stanley Rous (oblivious to the AIFF letter written on that day) the then Secretary of FIFA and member of the organising committee wrote a letter addressed to Mr. Dutta Ray, secretary of AIFF. The letter was detailed and it highlighted the organising committee's plans to have 16 teams grouped into four groups of four teams. 

Philippines and Burma had withdrawn and so India was to be the sole representative from Asia if they were willing to. 

Rous requested if India would like to be part of the World Cup and since India would have played no opponents as a result of withdrawal of aforementioned teams, the Indian team was requested to come and play few qualifying matches in Europe (Spain, Switzerland or Portugal) to "prove if the team was worthy to take a place in the last sixteen". 

Rous also added - "Your team was recently beaten by a touring Swedish club and wondered whether that opportunity to judge your strength had caused your committee to review its decision to take part in the World Cup, the last of the teams which will be drawn from strong Professional clubs". 

He concluded the letter by telling that he was not confident that England is good enough to go far in the tournament after their performance against Italy in the friendlies.

With six months to go for the World Cup, it was clear that India was the sole contender to represent Asia at the World Cup. Before that they had to reply to FIFA whether they would be interested in taking part and if they are indeed willing to participate, will they be sending a team to Europe to prove 'if they indeed belong to the league of the other world teams'.

AIFF wrote a strong letter to FIFA's Secretary General Dr. Ivo Schricker in which they highlighted - "Regarding the friendlies to be played in Europe, had India fulfilled her engagements with Burma or Philippines this question would not have come up at all." 

It also indicated that if Burma or Philippines were to withdraw, India would automatically get in. A clarification on the Swedish club 'Helsingborg' defeating India 11-0 was false. In fact, the Swedish team played three exhibition matches in Calcutta (Kolkata) against Mohan Bagan, East Bengal, and Bengal Football Association. Mohan Bagan drew the match while East Bengal and Bengal Football Association lost their matches by two goals and a solitary goal respectively. 

AIFF insisted India to be much stronger than what it was at the 1948 Olympics and would not cut a sorry figure at the World Cup. AIFF had also appointed the FA Coach George Ainsley from the UK to train the boys for 3-4 months duration leading up to the World Cup.

In its 23rd February 1950 letter to AIFF, FIFA confirmed India to be the finalist and they need not play their friendlies in Europe. 

The letter concluded with - "I want to mention a question which may be discussed by the Organising Committee in their next meeting: the question regarding whether the bare-foot playing will be allowed. I know that nothing is said about this question in the Laws of the Game - but the question will be eventually raised. It would be in my opinion advisable to let your players use in practice games light shoes, not heavy shoes." The last part was a private advice given by the Secretary-General to AIFF.

On the very next day, another letter was addressed to AIFF in which FIFA regrets the wrong press reports of the Swedish club matches played earlier. And it confirms again that AIFF does not need to play any of the so-called 'Test matches'.

On 19th March 1950, the organising committee met in Zurich and discussed various points related to the preparation of the World Cup. From the minutes of the meeting, it emerged that - "The Organising Committee considers that all players should play with shoes. 

However, it is known that in some countries there are players who play football without shoes, especially in India. A letter will be sent to the All India Football Federation drawing attention wrt Art. Game 4 of the Statutes, which provides that the shoes are part of the equipment of the player and perhaps an arbitrator (referee) may refer to this article and hence prohibiting play barefoot".

Until 27th April 1950, there was no response from AIFF on their stand regarding playing barefoot. FIFA and the organising committee published the list of finalists who would be taking part in that year's World Cup. India was part of the final list.

India was placed alongside Sweden, Paraguay, and Italy in Group C.

With just 30 days to go for the World Cup, FIFA received a wire message from AIFF which read - "Regret unable participate World Cup letter follows inform Brazil" - Soccer Calcutta.

And that letter is not to be seen and hence the mystery surrounds regarding this last minute pull-out.

What could be the reasons? Lack of funds, lack of preparation, lack of awareness surrounding World Cup football, amateur vs. professionalism, long-distance travel, apprehensions against the World's top sides, being stubborn to change its barefooted playing style or the politics over selection and power?

Let me look at it one by one.

Lack of funds - Though India was independent three years prior to the event, lack of funds was not a concern. Wealthy businessmen and other philanthropists were in plenty to fund the football team to Brazil. Moreover, the Brazilian Confederation had guaranteed air transport for up to 22 passengers. The cost of the stay for the teams would have been reimbursed from two days before the first match until two days after its last match.

At that time, while the plans for the inaugural Asian Games were being made in India, it is highly unlikely that Government would have stopped the football team from participating at the World Cup. And moreover, by mere presence, Indian football team would have been paid by the Organising Committee as a part of its participation fees.

Lack of preparation - George Ainsley, the English professional football player was roped in by AIFF to help prepare the Indian football team specifically keeping in mind of the World Cup. It was less than two years ago in 1948, where the Indian footballers put up a brave show against France at the Olympics. The better team lost that day but they returned home brimming with confidence. But how big was this football World Cup back then for these Indian footballers and to the AIFF? It seems Olympics was given more importance keeping in mind the success of Indian hockey team and its global appeal at that time. Lack of preparation would have been a mere excuse if even it came from the press release of AIFF.

Lack of awareness surrounding World Cup - Let me be brutally honest here. Sixty-five years ago, sports was merely an element which the 'selected few' played. India, post-independence had many problems and sports was not the priority. The success of the Indian national hockey team made headlines across the country. 

Rest, it was left to purists to go out and satisfy their thirst for more sporting knowledge and desire. Prior to the 1950 football World Cup, the previous edition was held in France - a good 12 years ago. At a time when most men and women of our country were busy in the freedom movement, passing the ball around with one's foot and to have men playing for a world cup based out of this sport was unimaginable to many. However, this has nothing to do with Indian football.

AIFF was formed in 1937 and a letter from AIFF was written to FIFA in April 1947 seeking permission to be part of FIFA. FIFA in return acknowledged and sent their statutes and waited for AIFF with the application. In May 1948, a letter was sent to AIFF confirming their membership with FIFA. In the subsequent letters written to FIFA, AIFF had shown more concern over 'rumours' of football being removed from the Olympic programme and if needed India would be happy to host the football leg of Olympics for the forthcoming edition.

It was evident, Olympics no-doubt was much bigger in scale than football World Cup around that time. In fact, later that year in 1949, Mr. Dutta Ray had visited FIFA in Switzerland and met the Secretary General of FIFA, Dr. Ivo Schricker. In his thank note, Ray acknowledged the warm welcome he received during his stay in Zurich and at the end of the note requests 'the arrangement plans' of India for the Brazil trip.

AIFF knew about the World Cup well in advance. Whether the Indian football team was well-informed on these communications with FIFA is not known. Even the ace-footballer 'Sailen Manna' (passed away in 2012) - who captained India at the 1948 Olympics revealed in an interview with Sports Illustrated India that - "We were less informed about the World Cup. And to us, the Olympics was everything".

The enthusiasm shown by AIFF in its letters to FIFA are anything to go by, it would be another excuse if 'lack of awareness' were deemed to be the main reason for India's last-minute withdrawal.

Amateur vs. Professionalism - At a time when India is still struggling to bring in professionalism in sports, it can be safely believed that the question of amateurism ideals of Olympics clashing with professionals would not have been an issue in 1950 for AIFF to worry. At that time, amateur vs. professional was a global issue in the sporting world and India being a newly formed country had other issues to deal with than worry on this 'debatable' matter.

Long distance Travel - At no point in time where Indian football team was asked to reach Brazil via waterways. It was well known to AIFF that the means of transport would be 'air-borne' and the Brazilian Confederation had offered teams air-fares. So we can safely rule out this reason.

Apprehensions against top sides at the World Cup -  Indian team was grouped alongside the reigning and two-time World champions Italy; Paraguay who had finished 11th at the 1930 World Cup playing in their second World Cup and Sweden, two-time participants at the World Cup and the Olympic gold winner at the 1948 Olympics. 

It must be noted that - the Italian team was affected by the 1949 Superga air disaster which took the lives of Torino AC football team killing 31 people which included 18 footballers. This was the background of the teams India were grouped with. 

Indian team were not favourites and if anything to go by, it was an opportunity to play alongside these top nations and get recognised after having performed well at the 1948 London Olympics. If India could go to the Olympics then why not to Brazil especially if the expenses (major) were taken care of?

Barefoot Theory - It is a well-documented fact that Indians preferred playing with their bare feet as compared with shoes. At least that was the case in the 1940's and early 1950's. Like mentioned earlier in this article, FIFA had given prior notice that Indian players were expected to play with shoes. 

If Indian hockey team played with shoes at the 1936 Olympics and at the 1948 Olympics then availability or knowledge of shoes was not an issue. AIFF - in their capacity could have procured shoes or at least requested for the duration of the World Cup. 

However, there is another fact which must be addressed. Indian team played with barefoot at the 1952 Helsinki Games and were thrashed by Yugoslavia 10-1. The champions of Asia were literally 'cold-feet'. This incident throws light at the fact that FIFA did not oppose India playing barefoot at the Olympics.

What would have happened if Indian team would have turned up in Brazil for the World Cup without shoes? Would the organisers have arranged shoes for the team or FIFA would have let Indians play barefoot as an exception or ban the Indian team from playing? Anyone of first two would have happened as I cannot fathom Indian team flown in and out without participating in the tournament.

While playing with shoes was not comfortable for Indian players, I am certain of the fact that the players were not shy about playing 'out of their comfort zone'.

Power Games and Selection Politics - Conduct a poll among the citizens of India on what prevents India from having a good sports governance, I would be surprised if power games and selection politics would not top the list by a huge margin. Such a delicate matter that, one cannot rule out this element - a crucial one as these struggles of power and favouritism towards selection have often been the reasons for many of the teams to withdraw from the tournament. While the administrators are entrusted to be the voice of world governing sports bodies, if therein lies a difference in opinion among the decision makers, the team often is the plagued one.

Conclusion: Without dwelling much into selection politics and power struggles, I would like to,  in my personal opinion have this point to be one of the many reasons I have cited above. The myth has grown in size due to this 'case of the missing letter containing official explanation' which the AIFF officially wrote or did not write to FIFA after sending that telegram on 24th May 1950. If there was an official explanation, it is nowhere to be seen. Is 'AIFF innocent until the world get to see the official explanation'? The innocence stems from the fact that - it is unimaginable for today's audience to fathom the size of 'World Cup' back then.

Till then at every edition of football World Cup, there will be a small section of this 'great Indian football story' along with many myths, 'if's' and 'buts' thrown in. The fact remains with the late withdrawal that - an opportunity was lost to be part of the World Cup. 

In an ideal scenario, India's participation at the World Cup would have inspired many a generation and probably football would have turned out to be India's mass sport. 

(Source: FIFA Archives)

Gentlemen's Agreement or Team Orders - McLaren at the 1998 Australian Grand Prix

In sporting context, one of the exciting parts of any year is the first weekend leading up to the F1 race. Like every year in the recent past, Australia is the destination that gets to host the F1 circus led by Bernie Ecclestone. A lot of incidents have engulfed the initial race - though none would have the drama which the final races are usually associated with. However, the first race often indicates what to expect and how teams are placed with their competitiveness. More than anything none can beat the excitement of a season opener.  

The year 1998 was one such scenario. The team of Mika Hakkinen and the Scot David Coulthard recorded stunning lap times in the pre-season testing and the MP4/13 was tipped to be the 'best' car on circuit. This was McLaren's year on paper and the only way it was going to be achieved is when their drivers do not take out each other in the heat of the battle.

In view of this, David Coulthard and Mika Hakkinen made a pre-race pact whereby "whichever of the two was ahead taking the turn to the first corner would be allowed to stay at number one for the rest of the Grand Prix unless there were to be any mishaps."

As predicted the two McLarens dominated the qualifying session with Mika Hakkinen taking the pole and his team mate coming in second. The fiercely fought rivals in the previous season Michael Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve were in 3^rd and 4^th respectively. The silver-arrows duo were 0.7 seconds clear of the rest of the cars and certainly looked to be racing on another planet. Anything less than 1-2 to McLaren would have been a unhappy weekend. A first one-two pole for McLaren since Adelaide 1991 when Senna and Berger had put the two cars on the front row was anything but surprise.

The five red lights went off and race began - Mika Hakkinen ahead of Coulthard coming into turn one. Unless there were to be any incidents, the race was firmly decided in Mika's favour. With Coulthard not willing to try harder to make an attempt to pass Hakkinen, it was clear how the race would finish as per the pre-race pact. The only driver that could match Hakkinen's pace was his teammate while rest of the field were off the pace. Michael Schumacher unsuccessfully made attempts to overtake the Scotsman and eventually retired on lap six owing to engine trouble. It would have been an uphill task even if he were to be racing.

With none of the other drivers able to stay with the McLarens, it seemed like the Hakkinen and Coulthard would coast to victory without having to look at their rear-view mirrors. On lap 36 when Hakkinen was just  about to lap Eddie Irvine, he heard blurred messages on his radio. Mika chasing Eddie Irvine was close to the pit- lane entry and without thinking and confirming with the team he dashed into the pits (he was nearing his pit stop schedule). While rest of the field were going flat-out, the race leader cruising in pit lane speed limits found no mechanics in the garage and he simply drove straight on and rejoined rest of the cars. It was an misjudgement on the part of Mika.

This unplanned diversion cost Mika the lead and he was now behind his team mate by 13 seconds. On lap 41, this time Mika came in for his scheduled and final pit stop of the race. Mika known to be ice cool was anxious and in that nervous moment made an error. He dropped his clutch while one of his mechanics was working on his left rear wheel. It didn't cost much time. He came out and still was in second position - 41 seconds behind. That huge lead was short-lived as Coulthard dashed his way in for his final stop of the race. With fifteen laps to go, it was 1-2 McLaren and it was a mere formality for the rest of the race. Drivers barring McLaren duo were battling the race of attrition. By this time only nine cars out of twenty-two were on track and a lap down.

McLaren crew took some time, close to eight laps after that detour from Hakkinen to inform David Coulthard about Hakkinen losing his lead owing to a misunderstanding. 

Towards the fag end of the race, Hakkinen was racing a second quicker than Coulthard and on lap 53 he took 3 seconds out of Coulthard's lead - the next lap add another two seconds. With just three laps remaining Coulthard's car was within striking distance to Mika's. Next moment Mika takes the lead in a manner quite strange and unsatisfactory!

'It was a very difficult decision to take. But I was alone in front without any pressure, which allowed me to think about it calmly and to reach the decision that this was Mika's race by right.' This was the explanation given by Coulthard post-race when asked about this bizarre move. McLaren and David Coulthard were criticised and the matter went to World Motorsports Council. The verdict went this way - "Any future act prejudicial to the interests of the competition should be severely punished in accordance with the article 151c of the International Sporting Code."

In 2007 at the Monaco Grand Prix,  McLaren were criticised for ordering their cars not to race each other after the first round of pit stops, when it was clearly established McLaren duo of Alonso and Hamilton were much superior to the rest of the pack. To add to Hamilton's frustration, he was told not to race Alonso.

The above matter again raised the question of possible violation of article 151c. Ron Dennis defended the move by stating - "Team strategy is what you bring to bear to win a grand prix. Team orders are what you bring to bear to manipulate a grand prix. We do not and have not manipulated grands prix, unless there were some exceptional circumstances, which occurred in Australia (1998), when someone had tapped into our radio and instructed Mika Hakkinen to enter the pits." 

He went on to add - "He entered the pits and I reversed that, because that was unfair, that was an outside influence on the outcome of the race. That is one of the rare occasions that there's been a team order. I have a clear conscience, both on that particular race - and this race today."

The 1998 Australian GP was Mika Hakkinen's second victory and both times under controversial circumstances. Was it a team order or Coulthard's gentlemanly gesture? I would say it had good proportions of both. In the end, the result didn't matter - Hakkinen was much superior and went on to win his maiden World championship title. 

CRICKET ON ICE - SWITZERLAND'S UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION TO CRICKET

Cricket match in progress - Cricket on Ice 2014 

On 15th August 2009, on the occasion of India's independence day I happened to be in Lausanne. To mark this occasion, the Jungfrau railways in Switzerland had staged a unique and some might say crazy event - Cricket on Snow. I missed the event but it managed to generate a lot of interest among the local crowd. Till date, if you talk about cricket with the locals, a good sizable crowd recall this 'match' which was played on the high altitude of Bernese Alps.

For a lot of them including the locals, cricket is an 'alien' sport - a game which is 'alive' and played in Switzerland mainly through the efforts of the expat community. Switzerland might have contributed only a handful of players representing the national squad - but there is no denying of the fact that a lot of support has been received over the years to make this game co-exist among other popular games of this land.

It is worth mentioning the oldest reference to cricket in Switzerland dates back to early 19^th century -courtesy of a painting by Giovanni Salucci of a cricket match in progress at 'Plaine de Plainpalais' in Geneva. Since that time, cricket never really became a household name and it was cast aside as a 'foreign sport'. The official cricket association took its birth only in 1980 and achieved ICC 'Affiliate status' in 1985. 

"Vue de la Ville de Genève et de Plein-Palais (Florence 1769-1845)" from 1817 by Giovanni Salucci

It was during this time in the 1980's the IMG's then head and top honcho Mark McCormack made frequent trips to St. Moritz - a canton in Switzerland. St. Moritz, a place also known as 'Top of the World' - a positioning slogan created by the International Management Group (IMG) in 1987.

A city which has hosted Winter Olympics twice (1928 and 1948) and currently home to the annual White Turf horse racing events along with skijoring (dates back to 1907) is a popular spot for Swiss and international tourists during winter. Add to this, Cricket on Ice - an annual event which is now part of St. Moritz's legacy. 

The uniqueness of these three events are that they take place in February each year on the frozen lake of St. Moritz. Mark McCormack in one of his many visits had plans to introduce a lot of sporting activities packaged as 'events' in this part of the region. In one of his conversations with Martin Berthod, who now is the Director of Sports and Events for St. Moritz recalled - "Mark expressed his desire to bring cricket and be played on ice. Thus 'Cricket on Ice' took its birth in 1987. Except for one year (owing to bad weather) the annual festival of snow and cricket has been a regular event annually coinciding with the 'White Turf'". 

Cricket on Ice logo

A Swiss local, Martin visits the site when the cricket is in progress to ensure there is smooth functioning of the event. He is responsible for preparing the ice turf, the outfield (with the aid of equipments and his team) and for any other aid required. He might not be too interested in playing this sport but remains the only constant person since its inception. He is friendly and he is just a call away if you ever need him.

The tournament began with a bang. Trans World International (TWI) - an arm of IMG produced and recorded a lot of footage of this event in the wee years of this tournament. It attracted a lot of cricketers from the international arena - mainly from England to take part in this 'unparalleled' cricket event.

David Gower, one of the talented English batsman was once part of this event. He would remember the event for a different reason. His car parked at the parking area caved in and went into the lake in what otherwise was a rock solid ice turf. Every event has its set of 'tales' and this particular incident gets recycled each year.

Over the years the commercial sheen has been lost with a reduction in number of sponsors and IMG not being a part at this event. And yet the sole organiser, the St. Moritz Cricket Club attracts team on an invitation basis each year and continues to run the event with same passion and interest that brought this event in the first place. 

Back from Isolation - Indian Olympic Story

It was in 2012 when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to take that drastic step - a decision which was necessary from administration point of view specifically at the conduct of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) post Commonwealth Games 2010.

There were huge cries, issues of false pride and other theatrics from Indian officials. The news of Indian Olympic Association being banned dominated the sports news segment for a day, or a two or if persisted a week and nothing more apart from the periodic cameos. It was usual business from then on. The corruption charges of the CWG 2010 went back to being a political matter than a sporting matter.

If CWG 2010 and various accusations are one hand; it is the manner in which the postmortem was conducted that irked many followers of Indian Olympics. Clearly, this was an administrative issue(s) and the so-called 'God fathers' of Indian Olympic movement ignored the media scrutiny and the threat from the IOC. They took that one extra step and elected candidates who were either charge sheeted or being prosecuted by Indian judiciary or on bail. Which era are they living in?

I believe the ban was justified. It tempered down the egos and the softened the temerarious officials - the tainted ones who put in their names without shame or consideration. Something had to happen and IOC made a bold move and banned the entire association till the time the internal crisis were resolved. A cut-off from the Olympic tree.

It took some time for the news to sink in, analyse, react and then formulate a game plan to get back into the Olympic fold. There were several mails exchanged and the pressure was less considering 2013 was a non-Olympic year. When the decision was finally taken, it was little late. The IOA as a organisation missed the Olympic train. 

Indian contingent classified as Independent Athletes marched into the Opening Ceremony under Olympic flag. These three athletes - a five time Olympian Shiv Keshavan, Himanshu Thakur and Nadeem Iqbal were the only ones to be 'independent' and without a national flag at the Sochi Winter Olympics. 

Indian Athletes under Olympic Flag at Sochi 2014 - Getty Images

One can script a drama surrounding these episodes and echoing various sentiments of many people involved in this. A new scene was shot two days ago when the new IOA officials were elected, ably observed by an IOC delegation headed by IOC member Robin Mitchell.

Narayna Ramachandran, President of the World Squash Federation and the brother of BCCI supremo N. Srinivasan, was elected as the new President; Rajeev Mehta and Anil Khanna chosen as the new Secretary General and Treasurer respectively.

"The IOC observers told the EB members of the IOC about the IOA elections being held in full respect of the recently passed NOC constitution, and this new constitution complies with all IOC requirements, including the main clause that no person convicted or charge-framed can run for a position within the organisation."

History was made at Sochi today - for the first time in Olympic chronicles that a suspension of an NOC has been lifted during the Olympic Games and with immediate effect.

What does this mean? The three independent athletes at the Sochi Games can now compete under Indian flag, can walk behind their national flag at the Closing ceremony and as a symbolic way of depicting the recognition of three Indian athletes - Indian flag will be raised at the Games village.

IOC officials have authored a perfect ending to this year old saga which will bring cheers to millions of sports fans in India and more so for the three athletes who are relieved to have seen this positive development.

Redemption is one thing, it is the next set of steps that are crucial. How different will the current set of administrators be from the previous incumbents?

Coming back from isolation is a small victory for Indian Olympic movement and there are many miles to cover before we can actually rejoice. For now, we are back and I only wish - it is to move forward.