The only other sport I can think of that has a team and individual aspect to it is cycling. Now, there are lots of ways to tackle an argument about how that sport conducts itself...
As I said before, I find the result of the hearing fairly stomach churning. Without going over why I think it's wrong, it makes sense to try and understand what the reasoning behind it may be; we'll never truly know what that is.
The reasoning is pretty clear to me - there is no evidence for the FIA to use legally against Ferrari and that the FIA have realised the team orders rule needs looking at, either to improve it or remove it.
I also today realised cycling is another example, now I don't follow cycling much at all, but I would be guessing a similar scenario happens? Its difficult to really have a morally-defined sport when you have two contrasting ideals (individual vs. team) in competition.
If you think about it, its quite mind-blowing to consider that team orders are for the benefit of a team but in a individualistic manner yet team orders prevent individual competition. So team orders are both about the individual and they are not, just as motorsport is about the individual (Drivers championship) but they are not (Constructors championship).
I have said this for a long time now and repeated it many times. Motorsport has always been predominately a team sport. The individual makes little difference to the results without the team. I think this has to be reflected in the regulations and I think it should be made clearer and more obvious to the public.
People often say the Drivers Championship matters more because its more public - people remember drivers champions, not constructors champions and therefore the sport is about the drivers, about the individuals. While true that the WDC is more public, its impossible to achieve the WDC without the team and the team therefore have a hand in whether a driver succeeds or fails in the WDC. Ok, to the public eye, they do not care about a team or corporation, they care about more human faces. The question is whether that is what the sport is about?
I think the public have grown to have the wrong idea about F1 and motorsport in general. I think motorsport is too often compared to individual sports, which people can understand from their own experiences. Its easier to understand sports like football, tennis, etc because these are easily accessable sports which most people grow up playing. Consequently, we grow up with the concept of the individual skill being important and competition being based on these skills, rather than necessarily a team-based dynamic.
Its also partly because of the whole controversey in the first place in 2002 and this team orders rule, which basically pretended team orders didn't happen after 2002. This either caused people to become more suspicious or fooled them into thinking there really were no team orders, therefore making it more and more unacceptable when it was believed team orders occured. I would argue that if that rule hadn't been put in place and teams were publicly displaying team orders, Hockenheim 2010 would barely have been mentioned beyond those afforementioned people who don't understand the team dynamic of the sport or those who feel the attention should be on the individual.
I must also add that I agree with those saying that team orders deny us sporting competition and entertainment - that, for example, we have been denied a possibly great battle between Massa and Alonso, Hill and Ralf, Hakkinen and Coulthard, and so on. But at the same time, I don't see how you can prevent the team taking measures to improve their chances of winning. I also think that usually most of these circumstances demand a bit of respect anyway from the other driver, in the case of Massa, he had effectively lost his chance to make his own WDC bid with his terrible season so far. Although its nice to think he should be allowed to decide whether he lets Alonso through or not, he's in denial if he thinks he could have turned it around quite dramatically. Were we denied a dramatic turn around by Massa? I think not.
The problem arises when the team decides such a thing, but then they were possibly wrong. Like, if Massa had gone and won the following races and Alonso had DNF'd.
I can't really decide in my mind whether its right or not. If I was Massa, of course I would be angry and would prefer to be able to race. But at the same time I understand the team's position and allowing the team to choose to make that decision and the subsequent benefits or mistakes.
I kind of enjoy the politics of it all too, for example, in the BTCC I can't imagine Onslow-Cole is too happy about Team Aon screwing up his chances at the title. Possibly the most backwards form of team orders I've ever seen.
If they did, they would surely be very infuriated to find their bet on the Wurz/Davidson Peugeot 908 car lost out due to team orders at Le Mans or whatever. 
