[Rules] The FIA - what's occurring there?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Point stands though that it is one country only

The FCC has comparable regulations relating to the broadcast of profane language - it's not just unique to the UK.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The FCC has comparable regulations relating to the broadcast of profane language - it's not just unique to the UK.

Plenty of variation from country to country but most that I’ve come across accept bleeping out profanity as a way to deal with it (or muting) - the claim in the original post was that it wouldn’t be enough to just bleep in a lot of countries, then used one country as “proof”.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The FCC has comparable regulations relating to the broadcast of profane language - it's not just unique to the UK.

Kids should be allowed to swear. Everyone does it.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Kids should be allowed to swear. Everyone does it.

Of course - they'll say and hear the same (or sometimes stronger) at school, amongst their mates etc.

It's life I guess - the days of "tally-ho, pip-pip, jolly good old chap" are long behind us.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Is this where the FIA should be issuing regulations? Where is the line they shouldn't cross? Richard

As the governing body, its part of the FIA's remit to be issuing regulations regarding the drivers' conduct on and off the track. However, there needs to be some differentiation between the two.


If there was any line crossing, it was in the way the FIA handled the situation. Having Verstappen hauled up in front of the stewards seemed like a very clumsy way of dealing with it; it wasn't a track violation and it brought the whole thing out into the open. It would have been far better, if the FIA had taken Verstappen aside and had a quiet word with him and had got him to issue an apology.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As the governing body, its part of the FIA's remit to be issuing regulations regarding the drivers' conduct on and off the track. However, there needs to be some differentiation between the two.


If there was any line crossing, it was in the way the FIA handled the situation. Having Verstappen hauled up in front of the stewards seemed like a very clumsy way of dealing with it; it wasn't a track violation and it brought the whole thing out into the open. It would have been far better, if the FIA had taken Verstappen aside and had a quiet word with him and had got him to issue an apology.

That ship sailed when he was asked not to swear, went on an incoherent rant about a completely different situation, and then chose not to attend the next press conference and instead held his own outside. I'm not sure "Hey say sorry" would've quite worked after that reaction.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That ship sailed when he was asked not to swear, went on an incoherent rant about a completely different situation, and then chose not to attend the next press conference and instead held his own outside. I'm not sure "Hey say sorry" would've quite worked after that reaction.

This is worth watching and puts the whole issue into perspective.


https://youtu.be/AsUJJ1Fi3OQ?si=K9jfufQt_vRBWPwC

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As the governing body, its part of the FIA's remit to be issuing regulations regarding the drivers' conduct on and off the track. However, there needs to be some differentiation between the two.

Why is it the FIA's responsibility to govern driver's conduct "off" the track. Why is the FIA involved in operating required attendance (I assume drivers can't opt out) press conferences?

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If there was any line crossing, it was in the way the FIA handled the situation. Having Verstappen hauled up in front of the stewards seemed like a very clumsy way of dealing with it; it wasn't a track violation and it brought the whole thing out into the open. It would have been far better, if the FIA had taken Verstappen aside and had a quiet word with him and had got him to issue an apology.

First, I agree it was handled poorly. I think part of why this hasn't been an issue previously is that this level of control hasn't been attempted (or at least attempted in more modern times). I think this brings of the valid point of "should they even be trying this". There can be ways to address this, but IMHO, FIA (really MBS) has gone too far.

I don't view this as a black and white topic in which drivers are free to do whatever they want when they are not in the car. I think many if not most sports leagues typically have some set of "morality" clauses. That if someone is acting in an overly unacceptable way, be it illegal or even legal, there is ability for the regulators to apply pressure.

The line in the sand (and how MBS drew the line) is ridiculous. Especially given there are much easier solutions to this "problem". I think the drama around it has proven to be more of a "problem" than the original "problem" if the original "problem" was even a "problem".

In my professional life, I commonly work to define roles and responsibilities with regards to operational processes. This is codified by a "Responsibility assignment matrix" (aka RACI chart or matrix) along with "Separation of Duties". When creating these, you have to extract the individuals out of the equation and look at the role. For example, in the discussion, you might say "The CFO should not have direct spend authority without appropriate oversight". Those in the negotiation might be dismayed at the implied attack on the current CFO. They will say "Hey, Bob has done an excellent job so far, why strip him of responsibilities?" The answer might be... Bob currently does NOT attempt spends without reviews. Bob has wide latitude, but he doesn't abuse that. So take Bob out of the picture and consider this rule against a "generic CFO". Just because Bob does a great job, doesn't mean the role should not have limits. The next guy in the role might "play be the rules" and show himself as a real issue as the rules are too free.

My point is... The FIA, IMHO, has too much power here. That just because "it has been done this way for years" is not an argument for it being OK. It hasn't been done this way for years. For years, this was not a problem because nobody was pushing like this. Now that it is, the argument is.... "This is within the rights of the FIA". So the question should be (even if we all agree it was handled poorly)... "Should it be?"

With that being said, it likely would be in someone's hands. My posts on this topic keep asking by FIA is involved in commercial topics (frankly the media interactions is much closer to the commercial side). So it would seem that I am advocating that it be controlled by FOM instead of FIA. I think FIA should continue to have expected driver behavior governance when it comes to sporting activities. When it comes to commercial activities such as required media and/or sponsor activities (as two big examples), then it should come down to both the teams (as employer of the drivers) and FOM (as overall series commercial owner).

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Why is it the FIA's responsibility to govern driver's conduct "off" the track. Why is the FIA involved in operating required attendance (I assume drivers can't opt out) press conferences?

The simplest answer is because they are the governing body and therefore they can. However, in the video I posted, one of the pundits Scott Mitchell-Malm refers to MSB and his grand role model crusade, so therefore the FIA has made it its responsibility to govern drivers' conduct off the track, in order to pursue this grand role model crusade, with the required attendance at press conferences being part of that.

Originally Posted by Richard C

First, I agree it was handled poorly. I think part of why this hasn't been an issue previously is that this level of control hasn't been attempted (or at least attempted in more modern times). I think this brings of the valid point of "should they even be trying this". There can be ways to address this, but IMHO, FIA (really MBS) has gone too far.


I don't view this as a black and white topic in which drivers are free to do whatever they want when they are not in the car. I think many if not most sports leagues typically have some set of "morality" clauses. That if someone is acting in an overly unacceptable way, be it illegal or even legal, there is ability for the regulators to apply pressure.

The line in the sand (and how MBS drew the line) is ridiculous. Especially given there are much easier solutions to this "problem". I think the drama around it has proven to be more of a "problem" than the original "problem" if the original "problem" was even a "problem".

In my professional life, I commonly work to define roles and responsibilities with regards to operational processes. This is codified by a "Responsibility assignment matrix" (aka RACI chart or matrix) along with "Separation of Duties". When creating these, you have to extract the individuals out of the equation and look at the role. For example, in the discussion, you might say "The CFO should not have direct spend authority without appropriate oversight". Those in the negotiation might be dismayed at the implied attack on the current CFO. They will say "Hey, Bob has done an excellent job so far, why strip him of responsibilities?" The answer might be... Bob currently does NOT attempt spends without reviews. Bob has wide latitude, but he doesn't abuse that. So take Bob out of the picture and consider this rule against a "generic CFO". Just because Bob does a great job, doesn't mean the role should not have limits. The next guy in the role might "play be the rules" and show himself as a real issue as the rules are too free.

My point is... The FIA, IMHO, has too much power here. That just because "it has been done this way for years" is not an argument for it being OK. It hasn't been done this way for years. For years, this was not a problem because nobody was pushing like this. Now that it is, the argument is.... "This is within the rights of the FIA". So the question should be (even if we all agree it was handled poorly)... "Should it be?"

With that being said, it likely would be in someone's hands. My posts on this topic keep asking by FIA is involved in commercial topics (frankly the media interactions is much closer to the commercial side). So it would seem that I am advocating that it be controlled by FOM instead of FIA. I think FIA should continue to have expected driver behavior governance when it comes to sporting activities. When it comes to commercial activities such as required media and/or sponsor activities (as two big examples), then it should come down to both the teams (as employer of the drivers) and FOM (as overall series commercial owner).

Richard

You are right, the FIA do have too much power and governance should be split, with the FIA having governance over driver behavior when it comes to the sporting activities and commercial governance like press interviews controlled by FOM, after all they are the commercial rights holder.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The simplest answer is because they are the governing body and therefore they can. However, in the video I posted, one of the pundits Scott Mitchell-Malm refers to MSB and his grand role model crusade, so therefore the FIA has made it its responsibility to govern drivers' conduct off the track, in order to pursue this grand role model crusade, with the required attendance at press conferences being part of that.

Thanks for the link to the excellent video. It covered the topic well.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

You are right, the FIA do have too much power and governance should be split, with the FIA having governance over driver behavior when it comes to the sporting activities and commercial governance like press interviews controlled by FOM, after all they are the commercial rights holder.

I think MBS is smart enough to realize he has handled it poorly. I doubt he will double down on all of this. But if he does, I expect him to continue to look badly in the larger court of public opinion (as mentioned in that video). As to the FIA can do this as they govern the sport perspective. I expect the ways this is done is that stuff like license is issued by FIA so if you want to race in F1, you must have the appropriate FIA license. If it were to get to the point of using license availability (which I think it never will get that far) as the lever against drivers, I can imagine there could be legal arguments that FIA is wielding power it shouldn't have or wielding it inappropriately.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That ship sailed when he was asked not to swear, went on an incoherent rant about a completely different situation, and then chose not to attend the next press conference and instead held his own outside. I'm not sure "Hey say sorry" would've quite worked after that reaction.

Max wasn't asked though, nor were any of the drivers - taking an adult approach like that MAY have lead to a better outcome. MBS had a bit to say about swearing in an interview, in which he said that FOM had been asked to use less radio messages with any swearing. Didn't mention any discussion with drivers, just made general statements - managing to get Lewis offside in the process.

Max also attended all press conferences he was meant to - just said very little in them and had more to say outside.

Max certainly wasn't punished for "an incoherent rant" but for saying that his car was ****ed in an FIA press conference. He dropped one F-bomb in total and whilst personally I'd have probably avoided that (or at least tried to) the FIA could have taken a far better path about it rather than simply punishing Max. If MBS really want's to reduce swearing (good luck with in a motorsport work environment - just ask Ted Kravitz) then he needs to win hearts & minds, which he won't do by handing out punishments.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think MBS is smart enough to realize he has handled it poorly. I doubt he will double down on all of this. But if he does, I expect him to continue to look badly in the larger court of public opinion (as mentioned in that video). As to the FIA can do this as they govern the sport perspective. I expect the ways this is done is that stuff like license is issued by FIA so if you want to race in F1, you must have the appropriate FIA license. If it were to get to the point of using license availability (which I think it never will get that far) as the lever against drivers, I can imagine there could be legal arguments that FIA is wielding power it shouldn't have or wielding it inappropriately.

Richard

Agree, although I do wonder if MBS is suddenly going to become smart about this situation - historically he seems to have a couple more jabs and THEN get smart. Who knows?

Balestre of course DID threaten to withhold Senna's licence until Senna retracted some negative things he'd said about Balestre but these days I agree that the FIA would leave itself open to legal challenge.

This really has been a mountain from a molehill / storm in teacup situation that could have SO easily been avoided.

[E.B]

I found this online which seems to highlight perhaps MBS is discriminating against Max whilst turning a blind eye in the past to others and the likes of Steiner.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander comes to mind.

[NaBUru38]

I'm fed up of this (M)BS