An interesting spin-off from Rally Sweden's shaky beginning this season was the revival of the notion of a drivers' representative within the FIA's rally advisory/management ranks. It seems to have germinated from the seeds sown in Australia last season, where a few drivers were vocal in their criticism of the ruling powers ignoring their viewpoint on night stages where hanging dust was more than likely to be a factor.
Fast forward to Sweden in 2016 and the same voices are heard expressing their dissatisfaction with what they perceived to be a lack of concern for the safety of the crews and the public. It reached the point where World Champion Sébastian Ogier called for a drivers' meeting at 0600 on the first competition day of the event, to discuss boycotting that day's first stage in protest.
History records that during the course of the meeting, it became evident that not all the P1 drivers attending were happy with the idea of a previously unannounced boycott blindsiding the organisers and paying public, even though agreement was unanimous that the crews should have a say in issues of safety. Hayden Paddon has subsequently been singled out as the hold-out who refused to take part in the boycott even though other drivers at the meeting agreed with the Kiwi's position.
As things transpired, the Swedish weather played ball, and the work the organisers did in repairing/preparing the roads basically rendered the safety issues moot. So even Ogier, ring-leader of the still-born drivers' mutiny, was appropriately upbeat about the event and the organisers at the end of the rally. So was it all a snowstorm in a teacup?
No. The drivers' desire to have some say in the conditions of their risky employment is real, understandable, and it's absolutely correct.
The problem is how to implement this input in a manner that doesn't hold events to ransom, yet ensures that the voice is heard, and that decisions are made with the viewpont of the drivers having a proportionate bearing on the outcome. Ideally, these discussions would be held in advance of the event that they pertain to, but that will never be possible in all cases given the tightness of the WRC schedule and the vagaries of the Earth's climate.
So, realistically, the drivers' advocate would be more effective in terms of policy rather than execution, simply because no single voice should be allowed to override all others and ultimately, nobody wants to see a boycott - neither FIA, organisers, promoters, teams or indeed the drivers themselves. So while a drivers' advocate is a good idea and such a role should be implemented for the WRC, the drivers' advocate would have insufficient power to act unilaterally on their behalf.
Thus, the answer to this seems to be a Championship Safety Officer, somebody with the necessary knowledge, experience, credibility and independence to be appointed to the group of WRC officers who currently monitor and manage the events on the ground.
Of course, it's easy when you say it fast. But when it comes to finding someone who has the requisite skills and necessary credibility with all parties, it's not that easy after all. An ex-driver, for example, might well be seen as too "driver-friendly", an ex team director might appear to some as unacceptably "team-focussed", and so on.
So we're looking for a skilled negotiator, who never ran a team, drove a rally car in anger, held a position in the FIA, organised a round but is fully up to speed with safety issues and the regulatory nuances of the World Rally Championship.
Good luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment