FIA/Mosely threat Aus. GP/Aussie Motorsport in jeopardy (merged)

[furnik28]

I think that the fia needs to take a big look at them self and see that they are loosing fans to the sport and sports cars due to stupid changes in rules. f1 is ment to be a development sport not formula ford.

[nkh]

Originally Posted by Ross Cadell

You may find that most judicial democracies, even in your own country anyone can apply for injunctive relief in any situation where
....

(I agree with the rest, but)

You may find that smilies are used to indicate irony, jokes, smiling.

Also, FIA and only FIA desides where they want to host races, no country desides that.

That said, this is of course just FIA reacting to all Stoddarts draging them around, Australia will still host F1 races in the future. Everything will work out.

[GTRMagic]

This isnt the first attempt at an injunction in F1 is it?

I seem to recall an F1 team being unable to access their cars in Monaco as a creditor had successfully pleaded a case to a judge in the court of that land, that impounded some team equipment until another remedy was reached.

See now if I was a cynic (shoosh in the back row!!) I would think that this has something to do with a personality issue Mr Mosley seems to have with Mr Stoddart, about who actually knows more about the technical aspects of a modern day F1 car, and who is best placed to understand the most efficient and effective ways to cut costs out of the sport, while maintaining the spectacle.....

Stoddart for FIA president... NOW!

[DNQ]

BAR Monaco last year I believe BAR gained an injunction allowing them to compete.

Mosley is just a bloody idiot, don't put anything past him to destroy Stoddart.

[alfasud]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

See now if I was a cynic (shoosh in the back row!!) I would think that this has something to do with a personality issue Mr Mosley seems to have with Mr Stoddart, about who actually knows more about the technical aspects of a modern day F1 car, and who is best placed to understand the most efficient and effective ways to cut costs out of the sport, while maintaining the spectacle.....

Stoddart for FIA president... NOW!

Does Stoddart really know anything other how to whine like a baby?

If he did, you'd think he apply it to running his team rather crying all the time to the media about how big bad Ferrari and big bad FIA is picking on him all the time.

I can quite understand why the FIA would be concerned about this... not so much for concerns about the Australian courts but the precedent it sets for other countries. Can you imagine the potential for court intervention, if there was a Chinese (owned) team and Shanghi was the last race in the series?

The Monaco case was a financial issue. In this case the court intervened on a technical issue where the regulations had been set by the FIA (and Stoddart was one of the ones that voted for them). The FIA can be excused for thinking that if the aussie courts wish to get involved in the business of setting technical regulations for the Melbourne GP, then maybe it's not a suitable place for an FIA series.

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by alfasud

Does Stoddart really know anything other how to whine like a baby?

If he did, you'd think he apply it to running his team rather crying all the time to the media about how big bad Ferrari and big bad FIA is picking on him all the time.

I think everyone who wants to talk about the team managers like this, or hold Bernie and Max up on high pedistals, should do some reasearch into the FOCA/FISA war of the eighties.

Take a look at what Max and Bernie were up to during that period of time, and look at how they gained the power that they have now. I'm not saying that they haven't done a great deal of good for the sport, but you have to think that perhaps it's time for a fresh set of eyes to have a look at it.

The GPWC/FIA war will (if it ends up continuing) be a very interesting battle, and the most politically and business savy people will end up as winners. Bernie and Max may be on the winning side, but people like Paul Stoddart, Peter Sauber, Frank Williams and Ron Dennis are all very business savy and politically savy from their time in F1 and other business circles. They could end up on the same winning side, with more power than ever before.

The pros and cons for this, and whether it will happen, is stuff I don't feel qualified to get into. I would like to think, however, that the teams and the commerical rights holder/sactioning body will end up (maybe through the loss of some teams or current key stakeholders) pulling in the same direction.

Lets just hope they learn from the FOCA/FISA war and don't let people fighting the establishment become the establishment...

[GTRMagic]

from www.racenews.com.au

CAMS
Mar 5 2005
CAMS STATEMENT

The Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) acknowledges today's press release issued by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile
(FIA) and shares the concerns expressed in regard to the way a competitor sought to involve the Supreme Court of Victoria in issuing an ex parte injunction without notice to the FIA and CAMS.

CAMS needs to ascertain the details presented to the judge.

The motor sport judicial process adequately provides for the determination of sporting matters and the Victorian Supreme Court has confirmed on multiple occasions that all sporting judicial processes should be exhausted prior to seeking legal avenues.

The President of CAMS, Mr Colin Osborne confirmed that the issue would be discussed by the FIA World Motor Sport Council on 30 March 2005.

The laws of the land override any rules the FIA can dream up. Period!

[alfasud]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

I think everyone who wants to talk about the team managers like this, or hold Bernie and Max up on high pedistals, should do some reasearch into the FOCA/FISA war of the eighties.

Don't worry I don't hold them on such high pedistals.... but you didn't answer they question... if Paul Stoddart was so business savy, why doesn't he apply that to making the car perform better on the track where it counts?

At least I hope that still counts to some people.

Does anyone here really think that the technical regulations of an international series (like F1 or whatever GPWC come up with) should be variable from country to country, depending on the whim of local courts?

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by alfasud

Don't worry I don't hold them on such high pedistals.... but you didn't answer they question... if Paul Stoddart was so business savy, why doesn't he apply that to making the car perform better on the track where it counts?

Because he is also politically savy. He knows that minardi not being out on track yesterday provided massive amount of publicity for his sponsors than if they were tooling around the back. He knows that by getting it into court and trying to get the injunction he drew the attention of the public to the plight and drummed up some support. He knows that by doing this he annoys (harder words would be censored) the establishment and it showed unity amongst most of the "team of 9" against ferarri.

He also knew that one day without track time wouldn't affect an untested 2005-spec minardi's chance, and sponsors would get more out of it.
Winning the political game of F1 does not require a fast car. Fast, clever, and perhaps devious mind however is manditory...

[TCR-028]

Minardi was a "2nd favourite team" to me, after whoever Webber was driving for. Stoddart has lost me though. The way i see it you comply with the rules or you don't race, simple. Don't think he's won many friends with his actions in the past few days...

[SetikX]

I think this is all just an attempt by the fia to save face. Minardi was the battling f1 teach trying to beat the giant by any means possible, now, its the reason Australia may lose a total industry. Very good power play by fia showing minardi, and the world, whos boss.

[Red]

The laws of the land override anything FIA can dream on, quite indeed. That's why they'd rather find some other land to play on. Where's the problem?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by SetikX

I think this is all just an attempt by the fia to save face.

I'm not sure they have too. Minardi went to court, when teh FIA found out they approached the court and asked for the case to be heard quickly (i.e before Saturday). Then Minardi withdrew. Why did they do this?

Whatever, it has been a long time since any race situation has been decided in a court. Since then all procedings have tended to be conducted internally as all teams agreed this was best.

My opinion is that it isn't the job of a local communities legal system to decide whether a car can legally race under the technical or sporting regulations of the FIA!

This press release from the FIA is a little OTT, but it is just food for thought realy rather than anything definite. Check out the early '80s or, say, 1976, or many other times, or CART deciding its champion in the courts - now they were quality legal arguments that make the current situation look like kids playing!

[Valve Bounce]

The FIA said that as a consequence if Australian laws and procedures allowed a judge to act in this manner then the future of world championship motorsport events in Australia were under threat.



FIA said they and their stewards were given no notice of Stoddart's legal proceedings and were given no opportunity to be in court when the judge ruled on the case.

"Apparently, the judge thought it right to interfere with the running of a major sporting event, overrule the duly appointed international officials and compel the governing body to allow cars to participate in breach of the international regulations, all this without first hearing both sides of the case," FIA's statement said.

"If Australian laws and procedures do indeed allow a judge to act in this way, it will be for the World Motor Sport Council to decide is a world championship motor sport event of any kind can ever again be held in Australia."

Australian Grand Prix Corporation chief Ron Walker said late Saturday the issue would be raised by the Australian representative and FIA vice-president John Large at the next meeting of the WMSC later this month. Walker said the issue raised by FIA in its statement "clearly have implications for many other countries which host rounds of the FIA Formula One World Championship."


Did anyone notice that Minardi had the diffusers in their garage ready to be installed overnight?

[deeks6]

Australia is renowned for having extreme left wing loony judges and this is yet another example...what this bloke had to rely on for this decision (and the speed it was made) is anyones guess. The FIA is perfectly correct in saying that it's rules rule...IMO there is NO place for idiot judges and scumbag leech laywers in sport - you have a choice in sport...participate under the rules set out or not. That's about as BLOODY SIMPLE as you can get - if you don't like the rules P!ss off and play something else!!!

And...as Neil Crompton said on Ch 10, the first signature on Stoddarts paper was in September 04 so he had 5 MONTHS to make a few wings....jeeze, how did it get to this?
And how did he miraculously make them OVERNIGHT????

This is the equivalent of getting halfway through a game of chess and asking if you can move your King 3 spaces instead of 1 ... it's utter BS and the FIA should just tell Stoddy to go play F3 or some other game that he belongs in.

As an Aussie Motor Sport fan for 40 years, if this tool jeopodizes what has taken a long time to build up, he should be drummed out of the sport and the stupid "judge" should be sent to a flower-power, tree-hugging, acid-induced, whale kissing island a long way from nowhere, preferably in the direct path of the next tsumani.

[Adam43]

The interview with Jim on ITV before Q was odd, it made little sense. Stoddart did look tired though - I guess he has been busy.

[nobster]

It's about time that mr Mosley is stopped with putting out all his nonsense.
The world can do without Ferrari International Aid.

[Kicking-back]

Dare I say my usual phrase - but everything will work out OK in the end.

It did with Minardi, it will with the future of the Australian Grand Prix.

[Rossi # 46]

Originally Posted by nobster

It's about time that mr Mosley is stopped with putting out all his nonsense.
The world can do without Ferrari International Aid.

huh? whats ferrari got to do with this one?

It is Minardi asking for the aid, not ferrari who have their car to the 2005 spec.

[Adam43]

Lets keep this one to the specific aspect of How Australian Motorsport may or may not be in jeopardy. The reasons leading up to the court appearance are relevant, although indirectly.

The discussion behind the actual case is here: http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...90#post1243090

In addition we see another example of how a random dig can turn a thread rather than add to it. Which could ruin it for those trying to discuss the topic in hand.

[Asa]

Ron Walker said the issue raised by FIA in its statement "clearly have implications for many other countries which host rounds of the FIA Formula One world championship."

What the FIA is saying is that whoever tries to get an injunction on them loses their Grand Prix. Therefore they are impling that THE FIA IS ABOVE THE LAW in every country they visit.

[Red]

What FIA is saying is precisely that:

Yesterday, a Judge in Melbourne issued an injunction ordering that two cars be allowed to run in Saturday’s practice sessions notwithstanding that they did not comply with the regulations for the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship.

If Australian laws and procedures do indeed allow a Judge to act in this way, it will be for the World Motor Sport Council to decide if a World Championship motor sport event of any kind can ever again be held in Australia.

Seems extremely resonable.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by vatuloa

Australia has a westminister legal system are the FIA going to stop races in countrys that also have the same legal system because the decision last night can be used as a precedent.

Or indeed every other country where the Courts would step in if the running of the event is contrary to national laws. This is just FIA bluster to try to turn local sympathy away from Stoddart.

Even the FIA has to abide by procedural fairness. What would you say if a team was slung out for being illegal - yet their cars were perfectly legal? Would anyone say the Courts should not step in in those circumstances?

Originally Posted by deeks6

The FIA is perfectly correct in saying that it's rules rule...IMO there is NO place for idiot judges and scumbag leech laywers in sport - you have a choice in sport...participate under the rules set out or not. That's about as BLOODY SIMPLE as you can get - if you don't like the rules P!ss off and play something else!!!

It's not quite as simple as that...you have things like restraint of trade, natural justice, discrimination, fairness, interference with contracts, negligence, tax issues &c &c. Maybe that's because you need to be an idiot judge or scumbag leech lawyer to understand such things.

Just to take it to extremes. If the FIA said that you were allowed to bazooka into bits anyone who was ahead of you, would that overrule national law? No? Well, if that's the case, where do you draw the line? Banning a sponsor? Forcing someone to change suppliers? Refusing to hear an appeal? Wrongly overruling the legality of a car?

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

This isnt the first attempt at an injunction in F1 is it?

There are others. Tyrrell took out an injunction to be allowed to compete in 1984 after they were screwed by *******estre. Lotus took out an injunction declaring the 88 to be legal before wussing out (the fact that the 88 was a lemon may have had something to do with it). The RAM Brabhams were impounded at German 1976 by an ex-driver - Bernie stepped in to give the newly-unemployed Stommelen a drive and he stole a point. There were injunctions surrounding the Spanish GP 1980 and again in 1981 (the latter involving ATS and Emilio de Villota). There must be others.

[Asa]

But the Australian court was ruling on the agreement in the concorde agreement, which stated that if all the remaining teams agree, then Minardi would be allowed to take part, REGARDLESS whether the cars fit the 2005 regulations or not. Minardi had got all other teams to agree, but FIA stewards refused to let them run.

The Minardis had passed pre-race scrutineering and there was NO SAFETY issue. Normally, Pre-race scrutineering is about SAFETY, post-race scrutineering is about CONFORMITY.

The FIA said that they don't have to go by the concorde agreement and did not allow Minardi to race. Minardi sought injunction of that, then the FIA said Australia will lose its Grand Prix as apparently no one is allowed to seek any injunction against it...

It brings a further question, if the FIA don't have to go by the Concorde agreement, then why should any team sign it?