It is a general rule that the person who resorts to insults is the one losing the logical argument. This is a principle often forgotten these days, now that most public debate has descended to the level of mud-slinging and innuendo. But it is still a shame to see F1 joining the herd and happily accepting mere name-calling as legitimate contributions to debate.
As an interesting exercise, try applying this rule to the progress of McLaren's year-long battle with the FIA. I cannot recall one instance of a McLaren representative resorting to insult in a public statement, although I do not doubt that some ripe phrases were used to describe the opposition behind closed doors. In contrast, the FIA and Ferrari have hurled insults and accusations at every opportunity, apparently with impunity.
The cool fuel case was only the latest instance where this imbalance was demonstrated. The Ferrari lawyer, Nigel Tozzi, called the McLaren team "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity" in his opening preamble. For some reason, it seems to have escaped the court that this is pure opinion and irrelevant to the case they were supposed to be considering. The BMW lawyer (who shall be nameless - we have enough new legal stars made famous by McLaren's troubles this year) added that McLaren were showing "naked opportunism" in lodging the appeal.
McLaren's hero, Ian Mill, stuck rigidly to the facts of the case and threw no brickbats at the teams who had apparently been caught cheating. Granted that this all became irrelevant once the court had decided that the appeal was inadmissible, but the conduct of the parties surely says something about the strength of their cases. McLaren seems to believe that the letter of the regulations is what counts and they point to the rule and ask why it was not applied in this case. Their opponents, however, believe that it is sufficient to look at McLaren's motivation in appealing at all - they are after the extra points to make their boy a champion, they shriek.
As pointed out by GrandPrix dot com this morning, the Appeal Court neatly dodged the issue by declaring that the appeal had not been made in the correct manner and therefore refusing to judge it. But one wonders, since there were no objections to the the insults thrown in the courtroom, whether the judges would have allowed such statements as admissible evidence.
McLaren's motivation and moral standing are completely irrelevant in judging whether Williams and BMW should have been penalized or not. The case is about the regulation and how it is to be policed, not about McLaren's reasons. If there were special circumstances that dictated that the rule not be applied to the letter in this instance, that should have been made clear so that F1 teams can be reasonably confident that the stewards' judgement can be trusted in the future. Unfortunately, now that the court has used its one available means of escape, nothing has been clarified and we remain unsure of the stewards' impartiality.
It was ever so, it seems. I can remember that as far back as the sixties, the governing body was suspected of favoring Ferrari in its decisions. It is surely telling that today, fifty years later, the same suspicion is alive and well and flourishing in an atmosphere where name-calling and opinion are accepted as valid arguments in any dispute.
As it happens, in this instance we can all be pleased that Kimi remains champion - not that there was ever any danger that he would be deposed in this particular courtroom. But once again suspicion of bias and uneven application of the rules by the FIA lives on, no doubt to cause controversy and bad feeling another day. It really must mean something that, even when its decisions are popular, the FIA comes out smelling of something other than roses.
As an interesting exercise, try applying this rule to the progress of McLaren's year-long battle with the FIA. I cannot recall one instance of a McLaren representative resorting to insult in a public statement, although I do not doubt that some ripe phrases were used to describe the opposition behind closed doors. In contrast, the FIA and Ferrari have hurled insults and accusations at every opportunity, apparently with impunity.
The cool fuel case was only the latest instance where this imbalance was demonstrated. The Ferrari lawyer, Nigel Tozzi, called the McLaren team "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity" in his opening preamble. For some reason, it seems to have escaped the court that this is pure opinion and irrelevant to the case they were supposed to be considering. The BMW lawyer (who shall be nameless - we have enough new legal stars made famous by McLaren's troubles this year) added that McLaren were showing "naked opportunism" in lodging the appeal.
McLaren's hero, Ian Mill, stuck rigidly to the facts of the case and threw no brickbats at the teams who had apparently been caught cheating. Granted that this all became irrelevant once the court had decided that the appeal was inadmissible, but the conduct of the parties surely says something about the strength of their cases. McLaren seems to believe that the letter of the regulations is what counts and they point to the rule and ask why it was not applied in this case. Their opponents, however, believe that it is sufficient to look at McLaren's motivation in appealing at all - they are after the extra points to make their boy a champion, they shriek.
As pointed out by GrandPrix dot com this morning, the Appeal Court neatly dodged the issue by declaring that the appeal had not been made in the correct manner and therefore refusing to judge it. But one wonders, since there were no objections to the the insults thrown in the courtroom, whether the judges would have allowed such statements as admissible evidence.
McLaren's motivation and moral standing are completely irrelevant in judging whether Williams and BMW should have been penalized or not. The case is about the regulation and how it is to be policed, not about McLaren's reasons. If there were special circumstances that dictated that the rule not be applied to the letter in this instance, that should have been made clear so that F1 teams can be reasonably confident that the stewards' judgement can be trusted in the future. Unfortunately, now that the court has used its one available means of escape, nothing has been clarified and we remain unsure of the stewards' impartiality.
It was ever so, it seems. I can remember that as far back as the sixties, the governing body was suspected of favoring Ferrari in its decisions. It is surely telling that today, fifty years later, the same suspicion is alive and well and flourishing in an atmosphere where name-calling and opinion are accepted as valid arguments in any dispute.
As it happens, in this instance we can all be pleased that Kimi remains champion - not that there was ever any danger that he would be deposed in this particular courtroom. But once again suspicion of bias and uneven application of the rules by the FIA lives on, no doubt to cause controversy and bad feeling another day. It really must mean something that, even when its decisions are popular, the FIA comes out smelling of something other than roses.