I just found Atlas F1, and had an entertaining half-hour reading through Readers' Comments with everybody's gripes and general whingeing about the state of F1. My question is - what's changed? Domination in Formula One goes back so many years that I almost cannot recall a season which wasn't dominated by one team. Over the years we've had McLaren, Lotus, McLaren, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, McLaren (is there some sort of pattern emerging here?) So the McLarens are the fastest again - history is bound to repeat itself - what is the problem? Those who boldly predicted that the silver and black would win every race this season now have omelette-coloured countenances. Guess what, guys, you broke rule no. 1 in F1 predictions - never discount the German! Schumacher is so far ahead of the competition in terms of sheer driver talent that it doesn't matter what car he has - he will find a way to win a couple of races every year.

But he does pay a terrible price for his talent. It's not enough that he is handicapped by driving an inferior car. The authorities have taken it upon themselves to penalise him at every possible opportunity, to try and bring some parity into the driver stakes. No sooner had the dust settled on the Buenos Aires track, then the speculation started - Would Schumacher be disqualified for his incident with Coulthard? What a load of hogwash! Thankfully nothing came of it, but the speculation was nevertheless there. Why weren't the same questions asked about Villeneuve's incident with Coulthard, or Hill's with Herbert? All three incidents happened in similar circumstances (lead car went wide, following car tried to pass, lead car shut door, wheels touched, drivers in tears). Yet Schumacher is the ONLY guilty party? Pu-lease!

I agree fully that Michael pulled a cynical move on Villeneuve last year, and one that merited disqualification from the race (but not the championship - how can one incident write off a succession of brilliant victories in an inferior car?) But most will agree that a precedent had been set. Remember Senna taking off Prost's Ferrari in 1990? Remember Senna's big smile as he accepted the Championship? Tell me that his cynical stunt wasn't on a par with Shumie's! Yet he got off scot-free. Remember Damon shunting Michael off the track in the British GP a few years ago, at a time when he couldn't get past the German and looked certain to slip further behind in the Championship race? Naturally, Damon wasn't disqualified. Yet, when Michael commits the heinous crime of overtaking on the warm-up lap, he gets hit with a two-race ban??!! A ban which conveniently allowed Damon to close the Championship race to one point? I think Michael has the right to demand that the powers-that-be at least show some consistency, without unduly favouring drivers or teams of a certain nationality.

But this is where the entertainment part comes in. We will not get entertainment from watching team-mates battle for a race - that went out with the Prost-Senna shenanigans at McLaren, and deservedly so. The team put an awful lot of money on the line at each race. They call the shots, and they are not going to have team-mates taking each other off. Also, if they have decided that one driver will win the Championship regardless, then that is also their decision to make. So Coulthard handed it to Hakkinen in obvious fashion in Australia. Tough. Teams have been doing it for years. Trying to make it look like a genuine overtaking maneouvre doesn't make it any more acceptable. I also have no sympathy for the punters. If they think that modern big-money sports events are settled in an above-board manner, then they are naive fools who deserve to lose their money. I fully agree with Coulthard that race-drivers are not there to entertain. Would it have somehow made the race more entertaining if Coulthard had gone on to record a boring 1-2 for McLaren, with Hakkinen second? Absolutely not. For entertainment, we thankfully have the Japanese drivers. Who can forget the legendary Satoru Nakajima and his off-road antics? Or the other chap, Taki Inoue, who was constantly being run over by emergency vehicles? Now that's entertainment. Leave the top drivers to do their job - winning races for their team. If you want entertainment, get the marshalls to unexpectedly and randomly drop oil at selected corners at regular intervals during the race.

The biggest problem with F1 is not the monopoly of one team, nor the new legislation. It is the fact that F1 is no longer the reserve of the world's top racers. In today's high-powered business, it has become the playground of wealthy kids with more contacts than talent. Step forward Messrs. Mansell, Hill and Villeneuve. All three won the championship only through getting the prime Williams drive. When Mansell was at Ferrari, he was whipped by Prost. Then he was about even with Berger, who was whipped by Senna at McLaren. When Damon lost the Williams drive, he settled into his rightful position in F1 - about a half-second a lap slower than Ralf Schumacher, who in turn is about a second-and-a-half off his brother's pace. Now the real Villeneuve is also coming to the fore, as he doggedly hangs in there for seventh place in a car which should finish higher. I don't want to sound unduly critical of these drivers. They have talent. But they aren't true world champions. No matter what car he drives, Shumie is usually on the podium. That's championship talent. When it rains, Shumie is ALWAYS the fastest. That's championship talent.

A long time ago, I stopped watching Grands Prix to see who wins. That is only an indication (usually) of who has the best car. Now I watch to see who can overcome the limitations of their machinery, and finish higher than should be possible. In other words, I watch to see the best drivers in action. And modern Grands Prix are still immensely enjoyable in this regard.