The outrage after the Austrian Grand Prix two weeks ago wasn't really about team orders. Indeed, those have been used by Ferrari in the past. But there was a different factor about this event. Something that Ferrari didn't take into consideration... Karl Ludvigsen explains

That Ferrari miscalculated spectacularly in Austria is undeniable. The opprobrium of press and public alike for their "strategy" at the end of the Austrian Grand Prix was immense. The crowds were unhappy, and - most of all - the press were unhappy. The specialist press on the scene booed and hissed the Ferrari decision to throw the race to Michael Schumacher and the general press took their lead from them. If the Grand Prix reporters had simply said that this was "business as usual" I'm sure that the tabloids and broadsheets would have followed their lead. But they didn't say that. And I think I know the reason.

The reason is simple: Ferrari fucked Rubens.

Incredible as this statistic may seem, this is Rubens Barrichello's tenth season in Formula One racing. Before joining Ferrari in 2000 he raced for some very sympathetic teams, first Jordan and then Stewart. He turned in exemplary performances for both. It would be an exaggeration to say that Brazil looks to Rubens to fill the vast vacancy left by the death of Ayrton Senna, but not a big exaggeration. Rubens is by far the principal flagbearer for the Grand Prix aspirations of Brazil, which has been Grand-Prix-crazy since the first success of Emerson Fittipaldi in 1970.

Barrichello is a hugely sympathetic individual. Calm, gentlemanly, keen, enthusiastic, emotional, likeable, respectful - his character is a synthesis of all that we think of as the best in a racing driver. He has the speed, but without the brutality. He has the style, but without the arrogance. If anything, we have been worried that he may have lacked a certain killer instinct, without which no top-line driver can succeed. This year we've seen that he can manifest that as well. Any notions that Ferrari chose Rubens because he's demonstrably slower than Michael have been well and truly laid to rest, and not only at Austria. We'll see more of his speed at Monaco.

My point is this. If Ferrari had worked the Austria finishing tactic with Eddie Irvine as the Number Two, nobody would have objected. In fact such deeds were done a few times with the flaky and edgy Ulsterman and the fallout was negligible. Nobody much minded seeing high-living and self-regarding Eddie put down a peg or three.

But this wasn't Eddie Irvine. In Austria, Ferrari fucked Rubens.

Everybody was thrilled that Austria was going Rubens' way. He dominated the weekend. Practice, qualifying, the race - they were all his. This immensely likeable man, respected and cherished by press and public alike, was about to win a race against a healthy Michael Schumacher in the most gratifying and satisfying way. The race was on the brink of validating this latest stage of his career, one which the sport's journalists have followed with warmth and affection. Were they irate when Ferrari snatched the win from under the nose of this sympathetic character? Were they ever!

This was Ferrari's mistake. They failed to take into account how well-liked Rubens Barrichello is. Moving the pieces on their chessboard by remote control, they thought they could treat Rubens like Irvine. They could, all right, according to the driving contract, but the racing press didn't wear it. They were irate over this cavalier treatment of one of the most likeable and accessible men in the sport, and rightly so. That's why there was such an eruption of umbrage over the Ferrari decision in Austria. And the specialist press's indignation spilled over into the popular press with the terrible consequences for the sport that we have all seen and experienced.

Just a final comment. Many have said that Michael and/or Rubens should have ignored orders and raced to the finish. Why didn't they? Because so much money was involved. Neither was willing to risk his lucrative contract by defying team orders. Too much money was at stake. And if all the arguing over the high cost of Formula One would mean that less money would be in play, less money that distorts and deforms the sporting mentality of Grand Prix racing's participants, roll on that relative poverty, say I.