FIA double standards/Brundle attacks FIA against Sunday Times MERGE

[johnw]

See Martin Brundle's comments here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3021312.ece

Interesting to read that the FIA have previously complained about Martin's commentary. Now the writ served on the Sunday times.

Rattling a cage or two? Good on you Martin.

[FPV GTHO]

Its good to see someone like Brundle stand up and support their POV's, but i think its necessary to point out if theres any double standards, its between the handling of McLaren/Renault and Toyota from a few years ago, and not between the 2 cases brought up this year. Its easy to claim Renault got a slap on the wrist in comparison to McLarens penalties, but Renaults case may yet not be closed, and McLaren were originally found guilty with no penalty as Renault just have.

[ensign14]

French defamation is a criminal offence. That's why Max has gone to France. It's part of a campaign to silence the media. Criticize me, and I will try to get you a criminal record. And Bernie might have to ban you from the paddock as a result.

Odious in the extreme.

[f1manoz]

The FIA has been holding double standards for eons.

But the current mess with Ferrari / McLaren / Renault is making Formula One a real joke and it's getting all rather sad...

[Marbot]

If Ferrari had done the same with McLaren has they did with Toyota then none of this would be happening! It wasn't necessary for the FIA to deal with either of the two cases this year.But since they were asked to do so then is it any wonder that we get decisions like we have.

Martin Brundle has been very vocal about what has been happening to McLaren this season.I wonder if he would have been quite so vocal if the same were happening to Ferrari!

[ghinzani]

for an article he wrote slamming their withc-hunt of Mclaren. I particularly like this comment from Martin.

"I have spilt blood, broken bones, shed tears, generated tanker loads of sweat, tasted the champagne glories and plumbed the depths of misery. I have never been more passionate about
F1
and will always share my opinions in an honest and open way, knowing readers will make up their own minds."

Its obvious is'nt it, make Martin FIA President.

[rpj]

Thank god for Martin, at least he has the B--ls to say what we all think? Formula one has now become more of a circus than it was before, with Bernie and Mad Max as ringmasters. Somewhere along the line they have got to call a holt all to this and get down to what it is all really about, RACING.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by ghinzani

Its obvious is'nt it, make Martin FIA President.

It's not a job for an ex-F1 driver.It needs someone more like a captain of industry to run it in his spare time.

Isn't there already a thread about this?

I feel a merge coming on.

[brands]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

If Ferrari had done the same with McLaren has they did with Toyota then none of this would be happening! It wasn't necessary for the FIA to deal with either of the two cases this year.But since they were asked to do so then is it any wonder that we get decisions like we have.

Martin Brundle has been very vocal about what has been happening to McLaren this season.I wonder if he would have been quite so vocal if the same were happening to Ferrari!

Do you believe Ferrari would have been treated like McLaren were ? with Bernie and Max so close to the leading Ferrari chiefs I'm sure if Ferrari had been in the dock the verdict would have been like the Renault one.

Brundle his now upset the puppet master, when he was the head of the BRDC, and now the puppet......Max's bully tactics will return to haunt him sooner or later.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by rpj

Somewhere along the line they have got to call a holt all to this and get down to what it is all really about, RACING.

Most of the teams aren't interested in "RACING" only in WINNING.There's too much at stake just to go racing.Hence all the crap we've had this season.

[ghinzani]

If there is please merge, I did a quick look for Brundle. Just chop the rest and stick that quote in. ta

[Gt_R]

Where's the problem?

Martin's quite a chap, and although i figure there's a good dose of emotions and bias attached to every opinion, and journalists aren't exceptions, i think Martin has a rights to air what he view is right.

...however, considering that FIA is the subject of discussion, i believe they too have their right to defend what they perceive is wrongful statements.

It's quite curious to see some defend the rights for some to speak up, yet slam FIA for doing what they want for themselves.

If Martin's statement has any basis, then i think we can all rest happy that nothing worse will come out of it. But if journalists dare not stand up and bear responsibilities for the views they aired, then i think it speaks volumes about the credibility of journalists.

I think Martin can relax, as long as he has a good dose of explanation on how he derives his POV and justifies them.

There are journalists and good journalists. Martin may however feel sad that a sports which he is passionate about is turning its back on him at this moment.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

It's quite curious to see some defend the rights for some to speak up, yet slam FIA for doing what they want for themselves.

Because the FIA's response ought to be a press release disagreeing with Brundle's conclusion and giving facts to support themselves. The FIA is not defending itself, it's trying to stop anyone else from accusing it of being biased.

That is an intolerably unhealthy position for any sport to be in. If the FIA had its way the only comment about its governance that would be allowed would be that Max' faeces would be an untrammelled delight.

There is no wrongful statement. There is an opinion stated. Disprove an opinion. You can't. All you can do is show that it's unfair. And is it unfair to suggest that the FIA has a witch-hunt against McLaren? Given the following facts, which are all true:

1. Toyota stole IP from Ferrari and the FIA did nothing;

2. McLaren had IP given to them by Ferrari and the FIA charged them;

3. when the decision was made not to punish McLaren the FIA appealed its own verdict;

4. McLaren had the WCC taken from them, despite there being no evidence that they had any use of the Ferrari IP;

5. the FIA put an equality official in McLaren's pit, never ever having done so before, to protect a man who had blackmailed McLaren;

6. Renault had IP given to them by an ex-McLaren employee and were unpunished;

7. McLaren's protest against illegal cars at Brazil was thrown out without even being considered;

8. the FIA cleared Renault's car of having McLaren IP on it within a month of the investigation starting;

9. the FIA won't clear McLaren's car of having Ferrari IP on it until at least 7 months after the investigation started;

10. the FIA President calls someone who supported McLaren on the issue a certified half-wit.

Now the FIA wants to stop anyone saying that the above could be suspected of being a witch-hunt by making them criminals?

Next step will be bulletin boards.

[paddy]

I haven't got a side to take on this affair, but I think the time has come for people who love motorsport to take it back from the money makers, publicity seekers and the powercrazed who control it. Max Mosely should have lost his job for the remarks he made about Jackie Stewart. I can't think of any anyone in a normal working environment who would get away with statements like that.
The whole set up of the application of the FIA'S own regulations is a joke and should be challenged in a court of law. I am convinced that punishments are sorted by the means of cosy chats over expensive bottles of wine between Moseley, Ecclestone, Todt and Briatore. Interestingly none of these people has any intrinsic racing ability at all, either from driving, designing or engineering. They have been successful in various ways, but make their money on the back of other people's abilities. Give me 10 Brundle's for any one of them.
This straw has broken the camel's back for me. I'll go and watch club racing and rallying next season and leave F1 to it's own mad, sad world.

[JohnSSC]

What GT_R said!

I know this will go as so much whistling in the wind, but there sems to be a general unwillingness to compare the first decision re: McLaren with the first decision Re: Renault.

They were essentially the same.

McLaren went down another path because of information that developed after the first hearing. Of course, we have a couple of really big threads that have discussed the snot out of the how's and why's...

The bottom-line for me here is that each side is going to argue their case publicly. Already we have at least three sides of this yes or no question: McLaren has their story, Renault theirs and likewise the FIA has their own. While we can go on about the bravery of people publishing articles whose POV happens to agree with our own and then rail about the complaining the other parties are doing when they publish their POV, the parties still have the right and opportunity to do so.

But go on ahead, it is always refreshing to read the opinions of folks who are open to any POV as long as it mirrors their own!

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

... there sems to be a general unwillingness to compare the first decision re: McLaren with the first decision Re: Renault.

They were essentially the same.

McLaren went down another path because of information that developed after the first hearing. Of course, we have a couple of really big threads that have discussed the snot out of the how's and why's...

Yes, they were essentially the same and essentially correct. But the FIA only appealed one, despite there being a lot less evidence of use than in the original Renault hearing. It's like saying "well, McLaren stole £5, Renault stole £20, so we'll slap them on the wrist...oh, hang on, we now find McLaren stole £10, so we'll give them 20 years".

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

But go on ahead, it is always refreshing to read the opinions of folks who are open to any POV as long as it mirrors their own!

Which is Max' perspective as well. Only no-one here is seeking criminal proceedings to deal with those who have different perspectives.

[Gt_R]

Personally, i will have loved if FIA kept it behind closed doors. But who is to say that it is wrong for them to persue legal actions?

I agree it is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, and be encouraged to have one, no doubt.. But the issue is that when you make a remark negative about others in a public media, you have be be able to stand up for it, and aware that the other party has all rights to persue and protect their own name too.

If Martin is comfortable with his words, and know what justifies those comments, in my opinion he has nothing to fear.

Ensign, you gave me a 10 reasons. But it's not me who is taking offence with Martin's words. All i'm trying to point out is that FIA has the rights to pursue their own interest through legal ways, while you think otherwise?

If Martin thinks like you, the 10 reasons, then he will present those reasons at the hearing to back him up. And i'd clap for him if he stands up for what he believe. In fact, i believe he will stand by it, and establish in detail why he accuses FIA of such.

What he says may not be widely agreed by everyone, but respecting that, all i believe is that an opinion has to be justified. And a publicly aired opinion must be responsible, because it has an impact on the party you're putting down.

Too often, there are those opportunist and irresponsible people who mark crude or unjustifiable attacks on others, only to hide and retract and issue apologies when legal law suits face them squarely in the face. Only those who are true to their own thinking and know the strength of their argument will stand up for their views.

[JohnSSC]

Another good point re: publicizing the decision.

If the FIA had kept the hearings secret, then we would be reading a lot more "speculation" from various parties who would use the lack of information as an opportunity to grind their own axe.

Instead, within hours of the hearings and the decisions, they have posted full transcripts on their website allowing all and sundry to read them and reach their own conclusion.

I would think that if the FIA were in anyone's pocket or doing the bidding of any particular team, it would not be in their best interest to be so transparent in showing the documentation that was used to arrive at a decision.

It is rather amusing, actually, to read about the FIA's secret agenda by folks quoting from the FIA's website. If secrecy is what you want, posting the information on your own website is not too terribly smart.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

Ensign, you gave me a 10 reasons. But it's not me who is taking offence with Martin's words. All i'm trying to point out is that FIA has the rights to pursue their own interest through legal ways, while you think otherwise?

Yes. Look at the way it's being done. Under English law governing bodies have to take such criticism on the chin. It is better for free speech to be allowed unfettered than for an amorphous organization to be immune from criticism. So Max has not gone to sue in England, where he would lose for a number of reasons. He goes in France where a Defendant can be found guilty of a criminal offence. It's an intolerable imposition that can destroy a livelihood. For what? An eminently fair comment that the FIA is undertaking a witch hunt.

And before we discuss the idea of Brundle and the Sunday Times being able to give their side, just consider this: the French law on defamation is in conflict with EU law, and has been since the sixties. Any sign of it changing?

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Instead, within hours of the hearings and the decisions, they have posted full transcripts on their website allowing all and sundry to read them and reach their own conclusion.

I would think that if the FIA were in anyone's pocket or doing the bidding of any particular team, it would not be in their best interest to be so transparent in showing the documentation that was used to arrive at a decision.

I think the EU's investigation a few years back basically foisted this on the FIA. However, in any arbitration the key evidence is presented in writing. Which is not released.

[Yannick]

I'd say this affair is yet another slap in the face of the freedom of the press.

Ordering from TV stations and papers what they may say, who actually pay large fees for being allowed in, is simply ridiculous and not journalism.

If the press turns out to be able to be dealt with like this, doors open for corruption, because once a journalist unveils it, he gets thrown out and sued before he can report about it.

And one can easily guess other corruption-heavy sports like soccer/football would openly welcome a scheme like this being ruled legal in court, so people can place even higher bets with dirty money.

Sorry to have been so negative.

[mjstallard]

It's sad and worrying that the FIA don't appear to believe in free speech.

As an aside, I just Googled for "define:fascism" and this was the first definition:

Definitions of fascism on the Web:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition

I now return you to our normal service

It's going to be a really, really interesting year for F1 off the track. Sadly not interesting in a good way - I've got a feeling there's going to be some big events unfolding should the FIA continue on their current self destructive course.

[Kebab]

What is interesting is that the Times, instead of publishing an apology or backing down, allowed Brundle to have a go at the FIA/Max again.

That says to be that they feel confident legally and that the lawsuit is probably just an inconvenience & expense ... which will be enough to persuade smaller media owners to think twice.

Having read and compared the two judgments, McLaren's is full of 'we find it unlikely that' or 'it seems unlikely' (I found the word 'unlikely' 9 times in the McLaren case - just one in Renault's).

Also, the words 'no evidence' appear 8 times in the Renault judgement vs 0 in the McLaren judgment.

Says it all in my opinion...

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by brands

Do you believe Ferrari would have been treated like McLaren were ?

It's entirely possible that they would.

Let's not forget that Renault aren't out of the **** yet either!

I'd be very happy if Max retired tomorrow if only because I could then watch the FIA's governance fall into further disarray.

[Sodemo]

The FIA gets more pompous and ridiculous with every ill-judged decision they take, be that technical regulation changes or other policies.

[Gt_R]

So let's do a headcount. Now not only FIA is screwed up, so is the french legal system?

It's a common sense thing. If FIA is really hell bent on being a warped and twisted force as many believe, i'm sure even a high-school kid can do a better (or worse) job than what FIA has achieved.

Is there any racing series where FIA isn't the governing authority and doesnt get anywhere near 30km radius of France territory? That could be paradise, by the look of it.