I have only lived in Melbourne for 6 months. While unable to attend the Australian Grand Prix this weekend, have essentially sat glued to the television watching all the coverage of the event. Needless to say, like millions of others, I have waited anxiously for the first race this year, wondering what the new rule ages would do to my much loved sport.

I have been amazed by the total dominance shown by McLaren over the weekend. It was only fitting they should take their place on the front row of the grid and it seemed, mechanical failure or driver error aside, the team should take the first victory for 1998.

What I was not prepared for was not only their complete annihilation of the other teams, but the sportsmanship shown by David Coulthard in the final stages of the race. I have also been amazed at the fervor that appears to have erupted due to his actions.

We all know that Hakkinen had the race apparently in the bag. The first round of pit stops were due, and all being well, it would be a McLaren 1-2 victory, Hakkinen followed by Coulthard. Then, there it was: Hakkinen pulling into the pits, continuing passed an empty pit garage, to rejoin the circuit in second place and 8 seconds behind his teammate. Unbelievable! Was it his mistake or did the team blunder? Soon it became clear that there was some sort of misunderstanding causing Mika to believe he was required to make his first pit-stop. Coulthard inherited the lead and now Mika would surely take second place. It was a shame after he had been so dominant all weekend, but after all, that's racing.

The two McLarens lapped every car on the course except for themselves, proving McLaren have the answers for now. Everything looked settled, Mika had closed up on David but had been told by his pits to "Cool Brakes" (Slow Down). Then coming on to the pit straight, an obviously slow Coulthard was passed by Hakkinen. My heart leaped, "Oh no, surely he can't have a problem!" I inwardly groaned. To my relief, his car soon sped up to follow in Mika's wake. "Now what's happened?" I thought.

My first reaction was that once again (Suzuka 1997), the team had told him to let Hakkinen through, for some unimaginable reason. After giving it some thought, it dawned on me that perhaps he had realised what had happened to Mika, and feeling bad for his friend and teammate, had decided to relinquish his lead as he felt Mika was more deserving of the win. I hoped this would prove to be the case, what a coup for Formula One, after Schumacher's folly in the last race of last year, Formula One could hold its head up and prove to the world it had sportsmen after all. Mika went on to win the race, in a formation finish with his teammate, David Coulthard. An outstanding result for McLaren.

In the post-race press conference, Hakkinen sang the praises of his teammate for his sportsmanship and the honour he showed in sticking to an agreement they had before the race. "Whoever lead at the first corner, would win the race."

This agreement has caused an uproar in Grand Prix circles, especially in Australia. It has been condemned as being against what Formula One is about, as being against all the rules and simply "bad show". But what is so unusual about it?

Agreements similar to this have been in place for as long as I've followed Formula One. What about the times when two cars from the same team have been leading the race, and the team bosses have instructed their drivers not to fight it out with each other, and take the 1-2 victory for the team? How many times have we seen two drivers from the same team fight each other for position only to tangle with each other, put each other out of the event and thus the team loses championship points (and sponsorship dollars). The golden rule of Formula One, "beat your team-mate but do NOT take yourselves out."

In my mind, this is the agreement David and Mika made for the race. Their cars were clearly dominant over anyone else on the weekend.

"What if we are both ahead of the others?"

"Well, instead of risking taking each other out over a fight for the win, whoever leads at the first corner, wins the race."

"It's a deal."

Both drivers know where they stand, they know what to expect of the other driver and ultimately the team wins, isn't that what it's all about?

Only David took it one step further. He could have said, "Well Mika, you blew it. Tough luck old chap, but that's racing." Instead, after all the frustration they have been through over the last 3 or so years, after all their hard work, their support and their friendship, David decided the win should really be Mika's; Mika had beaten him to the first corner and all being equal, should have won the race. David honoured their agreement, allowing Mika through, and the race was sealed.

There was no arrangement to fix the race. At no stage before the race did either driver know who would win. That was only decided after the 500m drag race off the line to the first corner: won by Mika Hakkinen. After the sheer dominance of McLaren, does it really matter which driver won? McLaren took first and second, they won the weekend. Fair and square.

Drivers helping each other out like this is not as unusual or uncommon as some may think. Let us rewind to Japan 1997, Suzuka, the Japanese Formula One Grand Prix. The Driver's Championship is a close battle between Michael Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve. Villeneuve is effectively disqualified for the event (under appeal) but Michael needs to score as many points as possible to stay in the Championship hunt.

Villeneuve wins the start and takes the lead over Eddie Irvine (Michael's teammate), followed by Michael. Villeneuve appears to be slow, holding up the cars behind him. Suddenly, in the most amazing overtaking move, Irvine catches Villeneuve completely by surprise and passes him on the OUTSIDE of a sweeping bend to take the lead. Using his superior knowledge of the circuit, Irvine clears out a huge lead in a short space of time, leaving the rest of the cars to try to find a way past a slow Villeneuve.

Then we have the pit stops, and eventually, Jacques exits the pits, attempts to cut right across in front of Schumacher who is just a bit too quick for him, and Michael gets ahead. However, Irvine is, in Grand Prix terms, light-years ahead of his teammate, Schumacher. Suddenly, Irvine's times drop dramatically. He is seconds slower than he has been. Schumacher closes the gap rapidly. Schumacher catches his teammate, and is suddenly passed. Irvine must have a problem. But no, Irvine starts speeding up again. Unfortunately, Frentzen manages to slip past as well, but Michael is now in the lead and goes on to take the race win and full, much needed, Championship points. He stays in the hunt. Was all this contrived by the team and the drivers? The comments in the post-race press conference seem very similar to a press-conference held a few days ago in Melbourne.

Interviewer: When you swapped positions with Eddie there, Eddie seemed to be slowing down for a while, I mean, where you talking to the pits at this stage or was it something that just happened?

Michael: No obviously, we talked certain procedures through and one reason Eddie could have obviously disappear was that Villeneuve was still slowing me down and after a certain time, when I got passed Villeneuve, we talked it through that he would then come to let me by, to let me obviously get the full points and take the victory here.

Interviewer: Was it enjoyable having a bit of team sportsmanship for once 'cause we don't see it very often in Formula One.

Michael: That's true, I've said it many times about Eddie that he's a great driver and he's a great teammate and I really have to thank (looks at and pats Eddie) him for this victory and I think that whoever had made question marks over him I think they would be fully gone by now.

So there you have it, just as David allowed Mika through to take the win, Eddie allowed Michael through, 2 races ago, in Japan. Different sort of agreement, different sort of circumstances, but the same sort of sportsmanship and team work.

The race in Jerez involved an agreement, not only between drivers within the teams but apparently between the Grand Prix teams themselves. Not only did Villeneuve (Williams) allow the two McLarens to pass him, but Coulthard allowed (was told to let) Hakkinen to pass him so that Hakkinen could claim his first victory.

This now makes it 3 Grands Prix in succession where a driver has allowed his team mate passed to record the victory. Whether for individual, or team reasons.

I must admit, I was not comfortable with what happened at Jerez, but I thought the race in Japan was an extremely clever one for the Ferrari team, and I thought the race here in Melbourne was a great one for Coulthard, Mika and McLaren. I think the difference with Jerez was that the agreements were made between Grand Prix teams, rather than by individuals of teams. After thinking for some time about why I feel like this, my reason is that I prefer to think of Formula One racing as being by between teams, rather than individual drivers. Sure, we all have our favourite drivers, but in the end, it's the team that gets the driver to where he is. It's the Team that remains long after the driver has disappeared into obscurity. It's the Team that allows Formula One to continue and develop.

So I guess whether you think the agreements made in events such as at Suzuka, Jerez and Melbourne depend on whether you think Formula One is a team or individual sport. All I can say is, go McLaren!

Mark is 29 and currently living in Melbourne. He has been a F1 fan since the first Australian Grand Prix in Adelaide in 1985. Since then, he's managed to attend 10 of the 14 Australian Grands Prix. Mark claims to be a "mild-mannered computer programmer during the week" and a "motor-racing rev-head" on the weekends.