Eduardo Pellerano Sports Management
Disaster in Indianapolis Motor Speedway
It all started when the Toyota driver Ralf Schumacher crashed in turn thirteen of Indianapolis Motor Speedway during the Formula One race weekend practice. One of his Toyota’s rear tires blew as he entered the fastest part of the track, which made his car spin and crash into the wall. He was taken to the hospital to check some head injuries, but luckily, he was doing fine. When another Michelin tire blew, the French tire company began investigating its failures. After much investigation was done, Michelin concluded that it could not guarantee the safety of its tires since some failures had occurred in the fastest part of the track.
It is then that Michelin advises Formula One supreme Bernie Ecclestone that three options were available: allowing Michelin to bring new tires for its users, adding an additional curve in order to reduce the speed before turn thirteen, or disqualifying all teams that use Michelin tires. Since Formula One regulations could not be bent, the teams that use Michelin tires boycotted and decided not to race since Michelin had advised them not to do so. As a result, 7 teams did not race for safety reasons, leaving only 6 cars, using Bridgestone tires, to race. Consequently, angry fans left the Grand Prix, while the others that remained threw beer cans on the tracks and booed throughout the race. Most, if not all, of the fans demanded a full refund for tickets. The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) summoned the seven teams and Michelin to trial in France in an effort to find who is to blame.
So, should the June 19 Formula One spectators get a refund for their tickets? Should the seven teams be punished for not participating in the race? Who should be blamed?
Since regulations for Formula One could not be bent, absolutism was in place. However, if relativism would have been in place, some of the regulations that could have been adjusted would have been adding another curve before turn thirteen or allowing the teams who use Michelin tires have the French company supply them with other ones, or use Bridgestone. However, Federation Internationale de l’Automobile did not allow for any amendments to be done to the already set regulations. The FIA argues that if the new curve would have been installed, the Bridgestone drivers would have been in a disadvantage due to the fact that they had already prepared for and practiced the Indianapolis tracks. Since Michelin drivers did not want to jeopardize themselves, after Michelin’s recommendation of not racing for safety reasons, they decided that this was the best option.
Furthermore, according to the professional ethic, one should only take actions that another group of impartial professional colleagues would view as proper. Specifically to this case, if the FIA had allowed changes to be made, would it have been proper? Apparently, it would have been. Many angry fans had traveled to Indianapolis just to watch the race. And, after getting there, the race consisted of six cars. Was this a fair decision for the spectators? No, especially since Formula One does not have too much public here in the United States and it hopes to seek some American sponsorship.
Based on the utilitarian principal, the action that would have resulted in the greatest good for the greatest amount of people would have been allowing the 7 teams to race on June 19th. Formula One fans would not have been disappointed and would have seen what they had gone to see. Additionally, Michelin would not have to pay refunds to the spectators and additional tickets for next season that equal to $20 million dollars, without including airplane tickets or hotels that some of the spectators had already paid. Lastly, the seven teams would not have to undergo any type of punishment since they originally did not bend any rules. Michelin tires were approved by the FIA, however some problems with the tires did not permit them to race.
According to Garrett’s principal of proportionality, the adverse consequences of an action can be accepted if and only if the reasoning behind the decision is proportionate. This principle takes into account the means, ends, and intentions. It can be argued, that for this case, the rule of relativism should have been applied. The decision should have been made based on this case only. Michelin tires were approved to be used on the racing cars, therefore the teams should not be penalized. Boycotting, as they did, was for a matter of safety reasons. It was not safe for them to race using Michelin tires. Additionally, the outcome of the action taken caused much more disaster. The United States is a very important market for Formula One since getting American fans and sponsors is very important to them. However, getting fans after this fiasco will prove impossible. Formula One will have to regain its image and clean its reputation after the June 19th event. Furthermore, Michelin, just as Formula One, will now have to recoup its image and bring confidence back to its customers as a provider of safe tires. Therefore based on Garrett’s theory of proportionality, I believe that the decisions taken on June 19th were unethical and should have taken more consideration.
Using Cavanaugh’s approach to ethical decision making, I concluded that the actions taken were unethical. After all the facts were gathered, answering the three criterions to the best of abilities is crucial. The first of three questions involves optimization of benefits. Definitely, the benefits were not optimized. It was completely the opposite. Only six cars, or three teams, were able to compete, while seven teams did not participate. The spectators left the Prix really angry demanding a refund. Michelin and the teams that boycotted were trialed in France for their behavior in order to find who is to blame. Lastly, Michelin will now pay $20 million dollars for tickets.
The next question is to decide whether the action was fair or not. After carefully analyzing, I believe that the action was not fair. First of all, the seven teams that were using Michelin tires did follow regulations. Michelin tires are approved by the FIA. Because the tires were not safe, as Michelin announced, the seven teams decided to drop the race since still going would have been very risky. In this case, I believe the FIA should have allowed for some alterations to be done. Michelin could have supplied the teams with new, safe, tires, after regulators approve of them, or they could have changed to Bridgestone, as the remaining 3 teams on the race had. Additionally, another curve could have been set up in order to reduce speed before the fastest part of the track. However, the FIA ruled out these options because rules could not be bent.
The last question examines whether or not the decision taken respects the right of those involved. I believe that everyone placed in the same position as the seven teams that withdrew the race would have taken the same decision, even those that use Bridgestone. The seven teams had done nothing wrong prior to withdrawing from the race. They were using pre-approved tires. So, I think that the decision made does not respect the rights of those involved, since at no point were the seven teams breaking regulations.
Therefore, for all the aforementioned reasons, I truly believe that the decision made by the FIA not to bend rules and to summon the seven teams and Michelin is unethical.
References:
“Business: On the Skids; Motor Racing.” The Economist. London: Jun 25, 2005. Vol. 375, Iss. 8432; pg. 81.
Caldwell, Dave. “Michelin Offering Refunds on Tickets to U.S. Grand Prix.” The New York Times. Section D; Column 1; pg. 2
Caldwell, Dave. “Red Flags Posted for the U.S. Grand Prix.” The New York Times. New York: Jun 21, 2005. Section D, Column 4; pg. 7.
Huff, Richard. “Formula One on wrong track.” Daily News. New York: Jun 21, 2005. Sports Section; pg. 79.
Formula One Website. www.f1.com
McLaughlan, Bruce. “Formula One Fiasco: Bernie can’t fix a flat.” Jun 22, 2005. http://www.detnews.com/2005/motorsports/0506/27/01-224315.htm
Pugmire, Jerome. “Formula One: Teams that pulled out of Indy race called to meeting.” The Associated Press. Jun 21, 2005. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05172/525501.stm
Pugmire, Jerome. “Formula One to Penalize Seven Teams.” The Associated Press. Jun 29, 2005. http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/car_f1_hearing
Roebuck, Nigel. “F1 Asco.” Autoweek. Detroit: Jun 27, 2005. Vol. 55, Iss. 26; pg. 37, 3 pgs.
Zapelloni, Umberto. Ed. Giles Watson. “Unsafe Tyres Turn US Grand Prix Into Farce.” http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2005/06_Giugno/20/ferrari.shtml