Max Mosley Reveals All 10/12/2007 I was going to write today about the little war of words between the FIA and Martin Brundle but GrandPrix dot com has written such a good post on it that I have very little to add. Let me just point out that the FIA's response to Martin's article dealing with the threat of being sued is the most mealy-mouthed statement I have read in a long time. Consider this, the FIA's main point:"It is regrettable that instead of applauding the achievements of motor sport's international champions, who were recognised this weekend in a Gala prize giving ceremony in Monaco, Martin Brundle chose to continue his campaign against motor sport's governing body."This amounts to whining. The FIA is saying that Martin ignored their fancy prize giving ceremony, preferring to answer the serious charge of libel that the FIA has raised against him. It does not seem to have occurred to them that they are only confirming one of Martin's points by this pathetic squeal of indignation - that the FIA will brook no criticism and expects to be fawned upon by all and sundry. If it were not so sad, it would be laughable.Also in the news is the fact that Alonso has signed with Renault for 2008, now that their case has been so conveniently dealt with by the WMSC. No surprises there but a strange silence over the fate of Heikki Kovalainen, whose seat has been taken by Nelsinho Piquet. Presumably Ron Dennis will have to step in to save the Finn from the Flav's sudden transformation from benevolent uncle to opportunist extraordinaire.All this has been swept away by a post in Keith Collantine's F1 Fanatic blog, however. Entitled Mosley on McLaren, F1 engines, customer chassis and more, the article picks out salient points from an interview with Max Mosley. This appeared in a new publication entitled The Paddock and was conducted prior to the Renault hearing, but it contains some fascinating snippets, far too much fodder to answer in a comment. Hence this post.We start with what is either a lie or a reflection of how devious Max can be:At that stage I’d already been told that some emails existed, by Bernie [Ecclestone]. Actually, he’d been shown a Blackberry, but at the time I thought he’d been shown the actual emails… Bernie just said: "I’ve seen these emails, they’re all in Spanish, but I’m told they’re very compromising."Max is saying that he knew about the emails before Ron advised him of their existence. That is different from what he said at the time and so he is lying now or lied then. But never mind that - let us consider how Max reacted when Ron told him of Alonso's threat; he agreed with Ron that there were probably no emails and Alonso was just trying to apply pressure to get what he wanted. If what Max is now saying is true, that amounted to deception and lying, hardly the behavior we should expect of a president of the FIA.We then move on to Max's assessment of the WMSC McLaren verdict:Well, I thought then, and I still think, that from a legal point of view, we should have excluded everybody. I find it very difficult logically to justify excluding the team, and not the drivers. The reason the team was excluded is that the information had been used, and that gave them an advantage, and therefore the drivers also had an advantage. But the emotional view in the World Council, the hearts versus heads view, was that we had a wonderful championship here involving the two McLaren drivers, and we shouldn’t ruin it. As it turned out, they were absolutely right, because it was a wonderful end to the championship. And in the end, I think, arguably justice was done.How many times have you been told that Max is a lawyer? Bearing that in mind, have you ever seen such a wonderful example of muddled thinking in your life? On the one hand Max still thinks that both team and drivers should have been excluded. But, on the other, it turns out that those who argued against him "were absolutely right" and "justice was done". Pardon me for saying it, Max, but you can't have it both ways.There follows the most blatant admission that the verdict was the result of Max's opinion:Asked directly whether McLaren were convicted without any hard evidence he responded:This is true. For a lot of it, you had to draw the inference. For me, the key thing was the discussion between de la Rosa and Alonso about information from Stepney being tried in the simulator, and/or the wind tunnel, plus the information about the gas in the tyres and so on. We were given evidence to the effect that none of these things had been tried and that the decision not to try them had been taken by de la Rosa, without consulting any of the engineers. That wasn’t credible.Wasn't credible? So, because Max thinks that it "wasn't credible", we are supposed to ignore the evidence that the information was not used and prefer the alternative based on no evidence at all. This guy is a lawyer? I am dumbfounded at such an open admission that McLaren were convicted without evidence, especially as Renault were let off scot free when there was evidence aplenty.Moving on to the engine regulations, it becomes clear that F1 is now just a test bed for the manufacturers. We are told that the small turbocharged engines previously proposed would be too slow and quiet to be regarded as racing engines (which only goes to show that Max understands nothing about how engineers can extract phenomenal amounts of power out of the weirdest machines) and that such engines would not make "a significant contribution to road engine or environmental technology."But hold on, I thought that was the very idea behind such engines - that they would use bio-fuels and be environment-friendly. That was what Max told us at the time, anyway. Now suddenly they are irrelevant and the gasoline-burning lumps already in use are much better. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all.As for Max's dislike of the engineers beginning to investigate the possibilities inherent in any proposed engine rule changes before they are instituted, they would be fools not to. That's what racing is all about and the reason we expect rule changes to be announced ahead of time - to give competitors time to prepare. In 1961 the sudden change to 1.5 liter engines caught the British engine suppliers by surprise; they had to make do with a fire pump engine from Coventry Climax, whereas Ferrari had an existing engine designed for F2 that fitted the bill perfectly. Is that the kind of thing Max wants?As for Max's concern that the manufacturers might fail to reach the EU's emission targets on time because too many engineers are working to improve F1 engines, words fail me. A more blatant admission that F1 is just a test facility could not be imagined.Certain basic facts about engine design need to be explained to Max. The whole aim and purpose of a racing engine is to extract the maximum amount of power from a given amount of fuel - get that right and you will have a winning engine. Racing engines have to be the most efficient of their kind and they consume large amounts of fuel only because you allow them to. Limit the fuel available and the engineers will still extract as much power from it as they possibly can and turbocharging is one way to do this. By freezing the engines you are saying that you are quite happy with the amount of fossil fuels being burned in F1 at the moment. And that is supposed to be relevant to road car technology?When Renault introduced the turbo to F1 in 1977, an enormous amount of research and development went into it - to the point where turbos became reliable enough to fit to road cars. That is where F1 is relevant to road car technology, in the drive to make engines more efficient and reliable. Don't give me crap about ten-year old engines being more environmentally-friendly or relevant than anything developed within that time period. The freeze is because Max wants it (for some unknown reason) and that is all.And so to cost-cutting. This is all to persuade the manufacturers to stay in the game, apparently. So F1 is not only to be a test facility, it must be a cheap one too. It matters not that the manufacturers will spend whatever they want, regardless of the restrictions put on them - they are there to win and, if that means spending on something missed by ever-growing regulations, then spend they will. Ultimately, they will spend themselves out of the sport, regardless of restriction, and F1 will be the better for it.Finally, we get to Max's retirement and then the inevitable book. Max seems to fancy himself as a comedian, going by his comments on this. And, in fact, that would explain an awful lot about the events of the last few years...
Clive
Steven Roy One thing this latest farce has shown is the number of fans who when the mood takes them can write coherent, intelligent and passionate articles about racing. I have yet to find one article in favour of the FIA's position. That is truely incredible. Not one person I am aware of has written in support of the FIA.The FIA's response to Brundle is utterly ludicrous. It does not refute a single point he made it simply tells him the party line. I assume the meaning behind this is that the decisions were held back until the Friday in the ridiculous belief that they would only be mentioned in the final paragraph of articles gushing about events in Monaco.While, like most people, I expected Renault to get off lightly despite there being far more evidence against them than McLaren and despite the fact that unlike McLaren they had the info long enough to actually make proper use of it I am stunned that their cars are not to be checked for McLaren ideas. If I was in Max's position trying to achieve what he is I would have had a quiet word with Flavio to tell him it was only a formailty but we had to do it to avoid looking suspicious. I am still in total shock that Max has sued a Rupert Murdoch publication. Maybe having so much power in his own sphere has warped his brain to the point that he doesn't see the risk to himself in such a move. Date Added: 10/12/2007
Clive I have hinted in previous articles that I think Max is becoming more unreasonable with the passing of time, Steven. This has become particularly apparent over the past year and I can only assume that power has gone to his head and is making him act in some very strange ways indeed. But, whatever his problem, the fact is that he needs to be removed as president of the FIA as soon as possible, for his own good and that of the sport's. Date Added: 10/12/2007
Alianora La Canta I was half-expecting the WMSC to do its "McLaren didn't fill in the right form" trick, simply to avoid the hassle that would occur if they made a definite judgement. Since they elected to make a judgement that ran against common sense, it should not have surprised anyone that lots of people have elected to complain about its lack of judgement.Obviously, Martin Brundle was going to ignore the quiet bit of predictable sports news in favour of the big, possibly ground-breaking story. That's really the point of being a professional journalist. If Max hasn't understood this by now, it is very surprising.I can't believe that the FIA had the nerve to link to the full article from which these comments come. Their information management truly is terrible, for these comments put Mr Mosely in a very poor light. He's admitted to entrapment (illegal in the UK if you're a law enforcer, and probably elsewhere), that the decision made about McLaren didn't matter to him (because he was happy either way - not a position compatible with being a member of any legal environment) and convicting without the necessary evidence (as Clive had already figured out). And that's just the bits that Clive spotted... Date Added: 10/12/2007
Clive I didn't know that the FIA had linked to the article until you pointed it out, Alianora - thanks for that. Keith had pointed out the most incredible sections already so it was those I concentrated on. Just as well, really, since the whole interview could have taken a week to pick to pieces. ;) Date Added: 11/12/2007
Björn Svensson There have been some harsh words thrown around here in the past, from us reading this blogg, and from you as the one writing and administering it. But this one was something special, what a feeling, such lively way to write.I can almost imagine that you had to change your keyboard after this one, since the buttons must have gotten pretty hot during your creation of this post.Incredibly good written, and very well formatted. Easy to read and understand, and fun as well.Any comments on Max's comments on various things is becoming unnecessary. Everyone who follows this blog is more than adequate informed of whats happening, and i think that all agrees with you. Kick Max's ass out of motorsport, and make a big fire of all his rules and regulations. That man has certainly lost his connection with all that is racing, and in the process he has lost his mind and his education as a lawyer. There's nothing more he can contribute to the sport. Date Added: 11/12/2007
F1Punter You have written perfectly what so many feel. Date Added: 11/12/2007
Clive Most F1 fans agree that Max has overstayed his welcome, Björn, but the problem remains how to get rid of him before he ruins the sport completely. There is hope that the FIA will proceed with their suit against Martin Brundle and that it may bring out into the open far more than Max would want know - which could be the end for him. We shall see.Thank you for your kind words and I must admit that the keyboard did get a bit hot while I was writing this post! Date Added: 11/12/2007
Clive Thank you too, Punter. F1 is nothing if not about passion and sometimes even I get a bit hot under the collar... ;) Date Added: 11/12/2007
Number 38 The photo makes another fine target for my dart board,thanks Clive. Date Added: 11/12/2007
Clive A pleasure to be of service, Number 38! :D Date Added: 11/12/2007
Eric M. One of your best articles yet! It sums up the Max problem as good as I've seen.Lately what's been striking me as odd is how frequently we see the FIA in the press, especially when compared to the governing bodies of other sports. It's as if Max is determined to be the de facto news maker in F1! Every other F1 related story these days is "FIA this", or "FIA that". Surely this is a sign that all is not well. In my opinion if a governing body like the FIA is functioning properly you should almost never hear about it, at least not in the headline-stealing sort of way we see the FIA demonstrating lately. As far as I'm aware other major sports are not having the same problem with their governing bodies.It will definitely be interesting to see what comes of this lawsuit against Martin and the Sunday Times. I hope they don't settle out of court. This could be our best opportunity to see Max exposed for the incompetent hack he is. I think the FIA's case is feable at best, though I do worry that for whatever odd reason the court just might rule against Martin. Date Added: 11/12/2007
Clive Thank you, Eric. That's a very good point about the visibility of the governing body and you're quite right - in well-governed sports, the ruling authority is hardly ever mentioned. And that is because everyone involved feels that the rules are fair and are justly administered - what's to complain about in that case?The FIA should be asking themselves why they are being criticized so much, instead of attacking anyone who questions their actions.As regards the lawsuit, I am reliably informed that Rupert Murdoch doesn't lose court cases. ;) Date Added: 11/12/2007
Dan M "In 1961 the sudden change to 1.5 liter engines caught the British engine suppliers by surprise; they had to make do with a fire pump engine from Coventry Climax, whereas Ferrari had an existing engine designed for F2 that fitted the bill perfectly. Is that the kind of thing Max wants?" Well, yea. Anyway he can give Ferrari the upper hand!And this one just makes my head hurt:"The reason the team was excluded is that the information had been used, and that gave them an advantage, and therefore the drivers also had an advantage. But the emotional view in the World Council, the hearts versus heads view, was that we had a wonderful championship here involving the two McLaren drivers, and we shouldn’t ruin it."So is he a transparent judge going strictly by precedent and the rule book, or is he concerned about the emotional well being of the drivers and sport? Thats like a judge saying " yea you killed someone, but you seem like a good kid, just give him probation..." It is so absurd that if this was a real court he would have been smacked with a gavel. Date Added: 11/12/2007
Clive The change in engine size in 1961 is quite interesting, Dan. It's the first instance of the governing body apparently favoring Ferrari with a rule change. Of course, it must be pure coincidence that British cars had won the championship the previous couple of years and it looked as though they would dominate from then on.Ferrari got one year out of it, easily winning the championship with Phil Hill, but then along came Colin Chapman who showed them that it wasn't just about engines - chassis mattered too. John Surtees managed to squeeze one more championship out of the sixties for Ferrari but otherwise it became a British possession.What gets me in all this present nonsense is that people keep telling me that Max is a lawyer. Well, he may have been once but he's forgotten even the basics by now - how else could he openly admit to having convicted McLaren on suspicion alone? If you don't have the evidence, you cannot convict; it's as simple as that. Date Added: 11/12/2007
Björn Svensson When i come to think of it. All these times we have shouted out loud that Max should leave FIA and go else where. All those times we have asked what it would take to get him to leave. All these times we have laughed about his ludicrous comments on things that he was never meant or supposed to comment from the beginning.And at the end it might be his own actions that makes our wishes come true! Such a great end to it all, i promise i will be sitting here and laugh at him for a whole week if that's to become the way of actions. Date Added: 12/12/2007
Clive Here's hoping, Björn, here's hoping! Date Added: 12/12/2007
Steven Roy Does anyone know if Bernie voted on the WMSC vote on the Reanult decision?The reason I want to know the answer to this is that bernie and Flavio both bought into QPR football club and both are on the board. Therefore Bernie has a clear conflict of interest and should not have voted. A court will take a dim view of him being allowed to vote in those circumstances and could use that to dig deeper.I hope Bjorn is right that Max's actions bring his downfall. I think there will be a lot of laughter in the world that week. Maybe we should start a petition now to get martin brundle knighted or canonised. Date Added: 12/12/2007
Björn Svensson I just found a petition for the resignation of Max over at Gopetition.com, thanks to Alianora LaCanta.http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/vote-of-no-confidence-in-max-mosley-president-of-fia.htmlPlease, all who cares about this matter, sign this form. Date Added: 12/12/2007
Alianora La Canta Already signed it, Björn. Hopefully someone will listen. Bernie clearly did have a conflict of interest. And the number of times that I've looked at a Max comment and thought "That might work in the Oxford Bar, but it wouldn't work in my uni's first-year philosophy class" is numerous. Now it appears it wouldn't work anywhere else either. Date Added: 12/12/2007
Clive Signed! Date Added: 12/12/2007
Pink Peril Oh yeah, signed big time & convinced a few others too as well !This current debacle has been brewing for a while, and I am just hoping it's enough to bring the whole house of cards done. Mosely is a fool, whereas Murdoch is anything but.I am not one to sing Murdoch's praises - I usually can't stand the man - but if there is anyone capable of bringing Mosley undone it would be him. In a 'real' court too - as opposed to the Kangaroo type the FIA uses.I am fairly new to this blog (although I have been lurking for awhile), and would be interested to know when others first thought Mosley was losing the plot. His stoush with Stoddart & subsequent announcement that Australia would lose it's GP because of Stoddart's injunction at the 2005 GP did little to endear him to me, as did the fiasco at Indy that year. But I am aware there have been problems for far longer than this ! Personally, I'd like to see Martin Brundle head of the FIA. Or Jackie Stewart or even Damon Hill. Some new blood is needed, that'd for sure. Date Added: 13/12/2007
Clive My understanding of it is that Max was more or less Bernie's lapdog until the Indy GP of 2005. That was the first time Max refused to bend to pressure from his tiny sidekick and from then on, he behaved as though he was the FIA and everyone else had better agree with him.So we can take it that Bernie was the mover behind a lot of the changes made in F1 before 2005 and Max should not take all the blame (or kudos). I'm not sure exactly when the pair started to go wrong but one of the biggest changes has been the constant fiddling with the regulations that seems to go on these days. In the seventies, the rules stayed the same for years and the only arguments were in the interpretation of them. Nowadays the rules are changed every year so that there is no stability, new rules are made to cover holes in bad rules or rules that never worked in the first place and no-one can be sure that they are treading the straight and narrow. It is quite ridiculous and why the teams (and the fans) have put up with it for so long, I don't know.But this constant change has given Max enormous power to affect the sport in all sorts of unexpected ways - he introduces so many new rules that many slip through without proper examination and then become bones of contention when they affect the racing.I must try not to rant, however. To answer the question, I think Mosley has been a time bomb all along - his admitted favoring of Ferrari from the first is evidence that he did not understand the importance of the governing body being seen to be even-handed. Some of his reforms have been good but, as Steven Roy has pointed out, they should have happened earlier when safety problems first became apparent. Others have been downright bad and have required constant revision and patching to work at all.As for his replacement, I while ago I proposed Alex Wurz and many agreed that he would be a good choice. His advantage over your excellent suggestions, Peril, is that he's not British - so we could not be accused of flagrant nationalism. ;) Date Added: 13/12/2007
Pink Peril Aha ! Since I am not British my choices are entirely devoid of nationalistic parochialism !But Wurz is indeed a good suggestion. Perhaps we should start a petition....... Date Added: 13/12/2007
Clive I have you pegged as an Australian, Peril, and that means you come under the great umbrella I call "old colonials". In my mind that confers honorary Britishness on both you and myself, since I, too, am an "old colonial" (though not an Ozzie). Not that I would dare call you a Pom but I think you'll agree that, for some purposes, the blanket description is useful.Organizing petitions is not really my thing but, if you get one up and running, I'll sign it. Conveniently, I believe Herr Wurz is currently unemployed... ;) Date Added: 13/12/2007
Pink Peril Oh dear, was the green & gold showing so boldly in my posts?! Still I guess the .au gave it away. Although I did live in Edinburgh for a year, and refer to it as my adopted home (and also coincidentally where I first watched F1 - the 1998 Spa race which was a doozy !!), so your bestowing me the title of honorary Brit probably fits. But you're right - never a Pom !Indeed Herr Wurz is currently unemployed. Would he be interested in a job offer, I wonder? If only we can prise the current hands off the mantle :( Date Added: 13/12/2007
Clive Yes, there is the minor matter of a present incumbent to solve first. And, even if that is achieved, we would have to make sure that the groomed successor is left out in the cold. Not that I'm saying Jean Todt would be biased but... Date Added: 13/12/2007
Alianora La Canta There's a simple reason why the teams and fans have put up with Mosely for so long - they and we have had no power to change matters. Only the FIA itself can change its President, and the FIA members don't listen to teams. So far, they haven't listened to fans on this point either, though maybe that's changing.I think that the change happened on 15 January 2003. Until then, Max Mosely, Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA let the structures within F1 to write many of their own rules, only imposing rules from above at specific intervals. Earlier in the 2002/2003 off-season, the FIA asked the teams to make up their own rules. But in the middle of January, Max decided to rip up their rules and invent his own (with help from Bernie). None of the rules invented then lasted until 2007 in the form proposed. This was largely due to the lack of wisdom involved in the ruleset's production.Now, I suspect at that point that Bernie still had the upper hand in the Ecclestone/Mosely power balance, but then the manufacturers' breakaway series became a serious threat. Bernie concentrated on breaking their threat, but this meant that Max had a near-free hand in the non-financial aspects of F1. It took Max some time to get used to it (thankfully), but once he had tasted the power, he just wanted more. This is at the root of a lot of the decisions he's made since, throwing the FIA's weight around whether it was helpful or not. 2005 was the first year in which it was felt, but it was only a Indy that year when it was proven that Max was no longer less powerful than Bernie. From there on in, read Clive's comment. Date Added: 13/12/2007
Steven Roy I think that the most important thing in the post-Max period is that FISA is re-instated. We need a body that exists to run sport rather than have sport run directly by the FIA.I will never understand why F1 ties itself to the FIA. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot exist as an independent entity and apooint people to run itself without worrying about what the blazers at the FIA think.Alex Wurz would be a good choice to head the FIA as unlike most drivers he has a genuine passion for road safety as well as racing. His father runs what I believe is Europe's biggest driver training company and Alex has spoken often about his involvement with it.However I believe with FISA re-instated that racing and road safety should not be linked and that the person/people running FISA should only be interested in racing. I have been arguing for Jackie Stewart to be president of FISA since the early 80s. That may be Scottish bias. I would however happily accept another Englishman like Damon Hill who has gone up massively in my estimation since he stood up to Max. Martin Brundle has the business background to do the job but I would miss his commentary too much. Date Added: 13/12/2007
Clive I agree with all you say, Steven, especially the reinstatement of FISA. That won't solve all the problems (there were plenty of arguments when FISA were running the show as well) but it would enable the sport to regain perspective.Most importantly, I think we need to see people who care about the sport in charge of it. Getting lawyers to do the job just complicates matters. Date Added: 14/12/2007
Alianora La Canta The reason why F1 is stuck with the FIA is because the FIA holds the rights to regulate by dint of the Concorde Agreement - or at least it does for the next 17 days. After that, there is no reason why F1 is forced to pay the slightest attention to the FIA, though the teams have signed a separate agreement to compete in an FIA championship until 2012 (this occurred in March 2006 when Max forced all the manufacturers to sign up or lose their F1 place).My dad suggested that the next leader of the FIA should be more business-savvy because that would enable the president to improve the FIA structures more. He thought Richard Branson (who runs Virgin) might be a good choice for President for this reason. Certainly if the FIA and FISA are not split, I would be inclined to think someone completely outside F1 would be a good idea at this time. Date Added: 14/12/2007
Steven Roy Jackie Stewart has also said they should head hunt someone from business. Personally I would re-instate FISA and put a racing person in charge of that and put a businessman in charge of the FIA. The difficulty is finding someone who is acceptable to everyone. I still can't believe the manufacturers caved in for a few pieces of silver. The could have set up their own championship and owned 100% of everything in perpetuity. I understand your point about the Concorde agreement but if a group of people get together and set up their own championship there is little the FIA can do. I know they license circuits etc but given how little the circuits make from their GPs currently I am sure a deal could have been done to find 16-18 suitable venues especially as Bernie keeps telling us that there are dozens of countries queuing up to build new tracks.A few years ago Bernie threatened to take all the GPs out of Europe because of the tobacco ban. Apparently F1 would collapse if it didn't have tobacco sponsorship. Richard Branson said that if that happened he would set up his own championship. At the time I thought that was impossible but I spent a few hours going through the problems. Drivers, circuits, sponsors etc. It didn't take long to come up with a substantial number of each. More than enough for a competing championship. It is an interesting exercise. You should tr it some time.I am not sure Branson would get on with the blazers of the FIA but he is certainly the right man to wake the whole place up. Date Added: 14/12/2007
Clive As long as the president of the FIA deems it a part of the job to make the regulations, regardless of expert advice, I think he/she should be well-versed in the sport. That limits the choices if you want a business person as well, although there must be a few candidates out there.Personally, I think it should not matter who is president - it should be a fancy title and all the decision making should be at a lower level, such as a re-instated FISA, for instance. Various interests could be represented in the make-up of FISA, including the teams, drivers and business/television. Let them argue things out, rather than have one man force through his own ideas. Date Added: 14/12/2007
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
