In my post entitled Insult as Argument in F1, I deplored the fact that insult seems to be accepted as a valid argument these days. Recently we have seen how Max Mosley uses insult to counter the rational arguments of those who disagree with him, the most famous example being his "halfwit" slur on Sir Jackie Stewart. Bernie Ecclestone is no stranger to the tactic, although he is marginally more subtle than Max, preferring inference to direct name-calling.
Bernie Ecclestone
Take Bernie's pronouncements on the furore surrounding the rule changes announced by the WMSC this week, for instance. "The teams must wake up," he says, implying that they must be asleep if they do not agree with the changes. His sole justification for this charge seems to be that the teams are led by engineers.
The inference is, I suppose, that engineers do not understand the complex economics of F1 - which is an interesting proposition but needs some explanation before we can accept it as true. Besides, Bernie himself came from a background that has been variously described as entrepreneurship and used car salesmanship; does he really have any greater claim to economic brilliance as a result? His friend, Max, is a qualified engineer and his financial talents must also be in doubt, therefore.
In fact, if we look a little closer, it becomes apparent that Bernie's assertion is not even correct. A quick search on the qualifications of the team leaders yields the following interesting results:
Brawn (Brawn GP): Engineer
di Montezemolo (Ferrari): Businessman (briefly a rally driver)
Theissen (BMW): Engineer
Briatore (Renault): Businessman (qualified in land surveying)
Yamashina (Toyota): Businessman
Whitmarsh (McLaren): Engineer
Williams (Williams F1): Salesman
Mateschitz (Red Bull and Toro Rosso): Marketing
Mallya (Force India): Businessman
That gives us three engineers and six from other backgrounds. It is somewhat amusing that the sole team leader adequately qualified by Bernie's criteria is Sir Frank Williams. Okay, he sold groceries rather than old racing cars, but the sales aspect is relevant, presumably.
To be fair to Ecclestone, I am sure that he is really trying to say that the engineers are competitive and do not consider costs when trying to design a car that can beat the others. This is true and always will be in the context of racing but it is the team leader's job to ensure that the budget is not overspent. He introduces curbs on the engineers as a result and has the final say on whether an innovation can be afforded or not - and that happens regardless of his prior qualifications.
Bernie is really attacking a viewpoint that is not held by the FOTA members at all. They have already agreed that budget restraints are imperative for the sport and have cut costs by 50%. Their outrage stems from the fact that Bernie and Max have ignored their suggestions for further cuts and instead have gone for a strange half-and-half idea of their own that is almost certainly unworkable. This goes directly against the culture of rational co-operation in implementing changes that FOTA have been trying to establish with the FIA and it is no wonder that Luca di Montezemolo is so infuriated that Max and Bernie have reverted to their old strategy of negotiation by extortion.
To then have Bernie support the FIA's position by flippant remarks and jeering adds insult to injury and is not appropriate to the government of an international sport. Such tactics may have worked in the past but they are foolhardy in the circumstances of F1 today. Several of the manufacturer teams remain in the game only through the narrowest of decisions by their boards; the team leaders' task of showing their bosses that they made the right decision is only made more difficult when the administators of the sport behave like boorish bully boys.
It's just not funny, Bernie.
Update
FOTA has today issued a statement to the effect that, under the terms of the FIA's own regulations, it is too late for the scoring system for 2009 to be changed without the unanimous agreement of the participants. Since that agreement was not obtained, the teams are saying that the FIA's imposition of a new system is invalid.
It will be very interesting to see how the FIA reacts, particularly in view of its favored bullying tactics.
Second Update
The FIA has now backed down, stating in a press release that "If, for any reason, the Formula One teams do not now agree with the new system, its implementation will be deferred to 2010."
Although this is an obvious attempt to avoid any admission of the FIA's ignorance of its own rules and procedures (there is no mention of the FOTA statement), there can be no doubt that the press release is a response to being caught out by FOTA. As Keith Collantine points out in his post on the subject, the FIA's claim that they thought the teams had agreed to the change is utter nonsense and a demonstrable lie.
It is clear that F1 is being run by a couple of guys who are interested in power and money only, this fiasco being only the latest evidence of how they play games to divide any opposition and act without thought for the genuine best interests of the sport. It really is time that this state of affairs was brought to an end.