The annoyance at Webber centres on Red Bull’s attempt to make his team mate Vettel the number one driver in the team – despite Horner’s denials. The latest evidence of this bias occurred during Silverstone practice when Vettel’s new and improved front wing came off. For some reason Red Bull only had two of the new wings so decided to give Vettel Webber’s wing. Webber was stuck with the old wing and only qualified second. This sent Webber into a spin.

“Honestly, I would never have signed a contract again for next year if I had believed that’s the way it was going to be going forward. That’s why yesterday I was disappointed… let’s see how it goes in the future.”

Strong words. Also consider that after Webber’s crash in Spain he was given Vettel’s old chasis. The chasis that Vettel claimed was the source of his lack of speed relative to Webber. Vettel’s mechanics claimed that the chasis was damaged and was ‘fixed’ for Webber. So Webber was driving with a second hand written off chasis.

These disadvantages didn’t seem to effect Webber. On the start of the race Webber made it off the line quicker than Vettel heading into the first corner. Despite Vettel’s apparent attempt to run Webber into the pit wall, Webber made it through the first corner while Vettel ran wide with a puncture. What sweet justice! It was a deeply satisfying moment and the crowd cheered or jeered loudly upon seeing Vettel drive off the track. The BBC commentators tried to sugar coat the crowd reaction by saying people were happy because it bumped Hamilton up. Probably, but I can’t help think that it had more to do with english-speaking solidarity at Webber’s shabby treatment and that Vettel the German up-start  – the driver F1 administrators want to protect – had received his just deserts for all of his excuses and received favouritism.

There has been a campaign of sorts against Webber as soon as it became clear that he could challenge for the Championship in 2009. This year a mini war of words started after Vettel ran into Webber towards the end of the Turkish GP, denying Webber a victory. At the time Red Bull manager Chris Horner and the team owner Dietrich Mateschitz either implied or directly blamed Webber for the crash. Max Mosley of course got in on the act to blame Webber as well. Most unbiased reports seemed to blame Vettel. While Red Bull subsequently backed away from their initial comments, it had become clear who Red bull was going for. From reports Chris Horner had instructed Webber’s race manager to tell Webber to let Vettel pass. The message was never passed onto Webber. Clearly Red Bull is not a happy unified camp. More below.

During the Silverstone race F1′s bias was most apparent. Even though Webber was clearly the fastest along with Hamilton, the only TV coverage of Webber was at the beginning of the race, pit stop, safety car and at the end – just 10 seconds before he crossed the line. His TV coverage would have amounted to no more than 5 minutes of a two hour race. The F1 producers didn’t even show him doing one lap. Towards the end of the race Vettel received virtually all of the coverage as he tried to pass a back marker. Anyone that had not watched the entire race would have thought that Vettel was battling for the lead. I have watched every race this season, and what happened with the TV coverage of Webber last night was simply a repeat of the lack of TV coverage at the two other races Webber has won this year. At one point last night even the BBC commentators noted this lack of coverage. This remarkable when you consider that the BBC once asked Horner after Monaco if the wrong driver – Webber – had won the race. So clearly the BBC are no friends of Webber either.

After the victory Webber told Horner on the team radio for the whole world to hear that it was not a bad victory for a number two driver. Presumably in reaction to this cheeky remark Horner was later suspiciously absent from the victory podium for the construction prize.  F1 must be seething.  The longer the championship goes on though the more F1 can’t ignore Webber. Vettel just isn’t the driver F1 thought he was going to be in 2010 and they have yet to bring themselves to face up to recent events.

UPDATE

The situation is even worse at Red Bull.

Webber’s mechanics were said to have removed the ‘old’ front wing that Webber had been forced to race with and waved it at Vettel’s side of the garage.

They, just as much as Webber, had been angered by the apparent favouritism shown by Red Bull’s management and were not afraid to show the world their simmering resentment.

I also noticed that Rubens Barrichello, perennial second string former driver at Ferrari gave Webber a great big well done after the race. Also, what must Bernie be thinking now that Sir Sterling Moss has given his support to Webber?

….the Australian exchanged a few words with Sir Stirling Moss. As if he needed any more inspiration.

The exact details of the conversation remain unknown but the legendary British racer probably told him exactly how he would have coped in a similar situation.

”I think what Mark Webber should do is say ‘OK, give him [Vettel] the best parts, and I’ll go out and beat him anyway’,” the 80-year-old told the BBC cameras.

And that is exactly what Webber did. ”An appointment with Karma?” he mused. ”Yeah.”

Given the ultra pragmatic nature of Bernie, he will probably end up the winner because this controversy has made F1 interesting again. More so than any rule change. Let the rivalry continue.

UPDATE II

Webber writing for the Herald Sun:

The only frustrating moment of the weekend came on Saturday afternoon when I missed pole position by just 0.14sec. Whether that was the difference between the new front wing that Sebastian had on his car and the old one that I was left with, I don’t know, but it was a far from ideal situation.

Too kind. The wing was the difference. Also, Hamilton has confirmed Vettel’s attempt to run Webber into the pit wall after the start of the race:

“Mark just drove in a straight line and the other one came over. Wow, he was aggressive, I thought they were going to crash,” the 2008 champion said.

Horner has also denied that the team favours Vettel for marketing purposes:

Is it not the case that German Vettel, 23, is favoured because he is apparently more marketable for the Austrian energy drink company than Webber, a 33-year-old Australian?

‘There is no desire because of Sebastian nationality, age or looks to give preference to one car or the other,’ added Horner.

‘It is about winning grands prix, challenging for and winning championships.

‘Never, at any point, has pressure been placed on me to favour Sebastian because it’s better for selling cans of Red Bull.’

Yeah no pressure has been needed. Horner probably from the very beginning saw Vettel as the number one driver and Webber as disposable.

The best photographic evidence yet of Vettel (our right) attempting to run Webber (our left) into the pit wall. Notice Hamilton’s direction straight on.

UPDATE III

People are starting to catch on to Red Bull’s tricky attempts to get Vettel across the line. From the UK Mirror:

…Red Bull slid ever closer to civil war with Vettel and his team on one side and Webber and the world on the other. Dubbed “Baby Schu” by his own German media, Vettel seems to have plenty in common with the legendary racer with a reputation for questionable ethics and dubious tactics.

Instead, it was the straighttalking Aussie who emerged with an emotional victory….

Red Bull boss Christian Horner has the impossible task of running a fair battle with team owner Dietrich Mateschitz’s advisor Helmut Marko clearly favouring Vettel.

Ruben’s may have rolled over when Schu was winning races at Ferrari, but Vettel didn’t count on a bit of Aussie grit and determination to get in his way.

Asian teams seek to reaffirm stature

Ranking	Zonal Ranking	Team	Pts May 10	+/- Ranking Apr 10		+/- Pts Apr 10
20	1	Australia	886	0		3
45	2	Japan	682	0		8
47	3	Korea Republic	632	0		13
61	4	Iran	521	-1		0
66	5	Saudi Arabia	498	0		3
69	6	Bahrain	475	0		0
80	7	Iraq	405	2		11
84	8	China PR	387	1		-3
91	9	Oman	362	6		16
94	10	Uzbekistan	354	0		0
96	11	Qatar	351	-1		0
97	12	Kuwait	350	-1		2
98	13	Syria	343	0		1
101	14	United Arab Emirates	310	-1		0
104	15	Jordan	300	-1		-1
105	16	Korea DPR	285	1		-7
106	17	Thailand	276	-1		-18
112	18	Yemen	248	-3		-10
117	19	Vietnam	231	1		0
127	20	Singapore	193	0		0
133	21	India	163	-1		-1
135	22	Tajikistan	155	0		-2
137	23	Indonesia	153	0		0
139	24	Turkmenistan	151	-2		-2
140	25	Hong Kong	150	-1		0
142	26	Maldives	129	1		0
146	27	Malaysia	123	1		0
147	28	Myanmar	122	-5		-19
157	29	Bangladesh	100	3		6
159	30	Sri Lanka	99	-3		0
160	31	Lebanon	98	-3		0
161	32	Nepal	96	0		4
165	33	Pakistan	78	1		0
167	34	Chinese Taipei	75	-1		-3
168	35	Kyrgyzstan	74	-7		-18
169	36	Philippines	67	1		12
173	37	Palestine	39	1		0
173	38	Laos	39	1		0
179	39	Mongolia	36	1		0
185	40	Cambodia	30	-14		-24
189	41	Afghanistan	21	4		4
189	42	Brunei Darussalam	21	4		4
195	43	Guam	17	-2		0
196	44	Bhutan	15	1		4
197	45	Macau	14	-1		-1
200	46	Timor-Leste	4	0		0

…government officials have hinted to rugby league that they are prepared to follow FIFA guidelines and introduce laws to force compliance with FIFA world cup regulations if the rival codes are not supportive.

These require that stadiums be available for the month-long world cup, and for up to four weeks before the event to prepare the grounds. FIFA also demands that no other big sporting event occur at the same time as the world cup, or seven days before in any of the world cup host cities.

The chief operations manager of the NRL, Graham Annesley, told a conference of Leagues Clubs Australia on the Gold Coast that the future of several clubs was in danger if the Federal Government forced it to suspend or move matches from their supporter heartland even for a few matches. He said the requirements of a successful world cup bid would make it difficult for the NRL to negotiate its television rights deal, which expires in 2012.

The chief executive of the league, David Gallop, said an eight-week shutdown ” would be difficult for us to agree to”. But he said if legislation was introduced ”it would not be our intention to break the law”.

I fail to see how a government can effectively out-law a sport(s). Even during WWI and WWII some sports voluntarily suspended competitions, but to introduce laws to out-law a sporting competition just to satisfy a rival sports code seems over the top and an abuse of government power. If giving up the Rugby codes and AFL is what is required to host the soccer World Cup, then maybe it is not worth hosting at all.

The Herald can reveal that Mr Albanese was instrumental behind the scenes in lobbying the NRL against giving the former prime minster a role on the code’s new independent commission…

The minister rang the NRL chief executive, David Gallop, as well as other league officials to tell them it was ”a stupid idea”. Mr Albanese also marshalled officials from the Rabbitohs, of which he was once a board member, to help kill off the idea.

”Nobody I spoke to thought it was a good idea,” Mr Albanese said.

We now know who really runs the NRL. Seems they can’t keep politics out of the sport. Well, Rugby League is a dieing sport, especially since the rugger buggers won themselves a place in the Olympics. I don’t see where the attraction for Rugby League will come in the future – maybe ex-convicts looking for a good time.

How pathetic, incidentally, that the Springboks, 20-10 ahead, chose to go for goal yet again when Brown was sent to join Giteau in the sin bin late in the first half, rather than kick into the corner and back their ability to score against a 13-man Australian defence.

But then the Boks would have played, at most, seven minutes of rugby in the entire match. In fact, if the stats are correct, the Wallabies only attempted 52 tackles – they made 42 of them – in the whole match, so rare was it for the South Africans to actually run with the ball.

The rest of the time the Springboks were either defending – badly, making only 52 of 77 attempted tackles – or putting up bombs and waiting for the Wallabies and/or Rolland to do the rest for them. Both Australia and the referee obliged.

This, apparently, is the way the International Rugby Board wants Tests to be decided, on penalty kicks. As if any other outcome was possible once the ELVs were abandoned.

China won the Asian under-19s championship match 2-1, holding on for victory despite a late appeal for a penalty from the Australians, who were aghast to see the referee award a free kick outside the box.

Australia’s Jessica Seaman was dismissed on full-time and a bench-clearing brawl ensued, with the Wuhan crowd joining in by pelting the visitors with water bottles as they left the pitch.

I am old enough and wise enough to know these encounters are nothing more than what they were at the time - mostly consensual, one-on-one sex, on my terms.

Mostly consensual – so the others were rape? This seems to of been missed by the Daily Telegraph sub-editor.

Speaking after Wales upset the form book to defeat Argentina 19-12 in the final on Saturday, Bernard Lapasset, the chairman of the International Rugby Board, said: “This was a tremendous tournament. I think it’s a very important moment for sevens. We had some delegates from the IOC here and I am sure they were appreciative of what we have done.”

Rugby, in its 15-man form, last featured in the Paris Olympics in 1924 when the United States beat France for the gold medal. It is competing with baseball, softball, golf, squash, karate and roller-sports for two spaces in the 2016 Olympics. The IRB will make a final pitch to the IOC in June before the decision is taken at a meeting in Copenhagen in October.

Everyday was a sell out with some major upsets – like Kenya defeating Fiji. My picks for Olympic inclusion are rugby and karate.

And I’ll make this bold prediction. If Rugby is included in the Olympics, Rugby League will seek reconciliation with Rugby Union within five years. I fail to see how Rugby League could survive as a fully professional sport with players lured to Rugby money and the Olympics. The quality of players and standard of play would degrade, along with financial backing. At some point players would have to take a major pay cut to keep NRL clubs viable, further club consolidation would eventuate, market share would be lost and the sport would die a slow death as a semi-professional part-time competition.