Mohammed ben Sulayem

[rscott]

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

Multiple drivers broke (and are breaking) the no jewellery rule and all have been granted the same extension.

Yet you chose to only mention Ham, funny that. Anyone would think you were a Hamilton obsessed troll.

[sparta6]

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

I seriously doubt anyone even considered it to be any kind of issue. Christ, the world really is turning into a snowflake fest.

It's a rule.

You'd think Sir Hamilton would respect all safety rules. Clearly not

[sparta6]

rscott said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

Multiple drivers broke (and are breaking) the no jewellery rule and all have been granted the same extension.

Yet you chose to only mention Ham, funny that. Anyone would think you were a Hamilton obsessed troll.

Yes, same rules apply equally to everyone.

Ham has been infringing the bling regs for the longest timeline. He should be grateful that he's been getting away with it for so long

[rscott]

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

I seriously doubt anyone even considered it to be any kind of issue. Christ, the world really is turning into a snowflake fest.

It's a rule.

You'd think Sir Hamilton would respect all safety rules. Clearly not

I guess you're not bothered your hero Max doesn't follow them either... Not a surprise.

[sparta6]

PhilAsia said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

Because Masi hadn't gifted a WDC* at the time?

You'll get over it one day.

Or are you still upset that Balestre gifted Prost a WDC too ?

[sparta6]

rscott said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

I seriously doubt anyone even considered it to be any kind of issue. Christ, the world really is turning into a snowflake fest.

It's a rule.

You'd think Sir Hamilton would respect all safety rules. Clearly not

I guess you're not bothered your hero Max doesn't follow them either... Not a surprise.

Wrong. We were wearing our Leclerc hats in Monaco. Not that it did him any good

[paulguitar]

Yeah, it appears to be a Hamilton hatred thing rather than anything positive anywhere else.

[Hazmat1]

sparta6 said:

Todt was lazy.

Oh come on, try a bit harder. By Your own metric verstappen was awarded a title illegally for contravening driver safety rules.

It’s amusing to everybody else here why you can’t actually admit that. You think Hamilton was awarded titles illegally so therefore so was max

[PhilAsia]

sparta6 said:

rscott said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

HustleRussell said:

We’re told that Todt was working mostly on road safety.

That's alright then, sod the safety of F1 drivers.

WTF are you talking about? There were many safety measures and improvements made in F1 in the Todt era.

Aren't all rules to be upheld, or just some rules ?

Do explain why Todt turned a blind eye to Ham's blatant infringement for years.

I seriously doubt anyone even considered it to be any kind of issue. Christ, the world really is turning into a snowflake fest.

It's a rule.

You'd think Sir Hamilton would respect all safety rules. Clearly not

I guess you're not bothered your hero Max doesn't follow them either... Not a surprise.

Wrong. We were wearing our Leclerc hats in Monaco. Not that it did him any good

True. And Max was finding it hard to swallow too...

[entropy]

sparta6 said:

Todt was very laid back and quietly happy about the Mercedes dominance years.

I'm yet to notice any bias from MBS towards any team or driver as the rules being tightened up apply equally to everyone.

Didn't MBS grant Ham a period of grace regarding the bling thing ?

I think MBS has an issue with Liberty running F1. There has been rumblings Liberty are looking to completely taking over and running F1. The brouhaha over jewelry could just be a reminder to show who's boss.

There's a precedent to this sort of behaviour. When Balestre became FISA president he fined drivers for failing to turn up to morning driver briefings which snowballed into the FISA-FOCA war as Balestre detested FOCA's contemporary influence in F1.

If Liberty wants to completely run F1 then - and just like Max Mosely argued when teams and manufacturers threatened a breakaway championship - it will need to be sanctioned by the FIA - who will likely be belligerent as the FISA-FOCA was has shown.

[entropy]

sparta6 said:

Todt was lazy.

He was putting out fires within Maranello from the interfering Luca Di Montezemolo. Just contrast the before and after of the Todt's years at Ferrari.

[Leithen]

entropy said:

sparta6 said:

Todt was lazy.

He was putting out fires within Maranello from the interfering Luca Di Montezemolo. Just contrast the before and after of the Todt's years at Ferrari.

Todt was hired by Montezemolo. Montezemolo was brought back in by Agnelli to sort out the nightmare politics that are endemic at Ferrari.

It was a double act that worked very well.

[Derek Smith]

Liberty doesn't need the FIA. It can run its own races without governance from outsiders. The FIA can turn stroppy if Liberty run F1 themselves, especially with regards to some, but by no means all, circuits. This threat was used by Mosley, but it's too obscure for me. Back in the day, Silverstone were not happy that they were contracted to run an LMES race because it might upset Ecclestone and negotiations for the GP, the contract expiring that or the following year. Politics: always politics.

On the other hand, the FIA needs F1. It doesn't get as much money from F1 as it used to. Mosley changed that for reasons best known to him and Ecclestone., but their income from it is still significant. Licences and such.

When the FOCA battle looked set to become pitched, I remember reading that a breakaway race could change 'everything' in F1 and if the FIA pulled all its resources it would be liable financially: restraint of trade and such. It would be messy, and would cost the FIA. There had been some such threats made to Le Mans series of races, run under the auspices of the A.C.O. The FIA had been less than cooperative but lawyers sorted them out.

I remember reading that F1 could be run with the A.C.O. replacing most of the FIA's influence.

My feeling is that we don't want all power going to one company. That would destroy F1. There needs to be outside influence. The only question is how much influence should the FIA have.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

I think if MBS gets his way about jewellery, his next move will be to ban drivers with tattoos.

[sparta6]

entropy said:

sparta6 said:

Todt was very laid back and quietly happy about the Mercedes dominance years.

I'm yet to notice any bias from MBS towards any team or driver as the rules being tightened up apply equally to everyone.

Didn't MBS grant Ham a period of grace regarding the bling thing ?

I think MBS has an issue with Liberty running F1. There has been rumblings Liberty are looking to completely taking over and running F1. The brouhaha over jewelry could just be a reminder to show who's boss.

There's a precedent to this sort of behaviour. When Balestre became FISA president he fined drivers for failing to turn up to morning driver briefings which snowballed into the FISA-FOCA war as Balestre detested FOCA's contemporary influence in F1.

If Liberty wants to completely run F1 then - and just like Max Mosely argued when teams and manufacturers threatened a breakaway championship - it will need to be sanctioned by the FIA - who will likely be belligerent as the FISA-FOCA was has shown.

You may well be right that the liberal Liberty approach may be a contributing factor in the FIA now beginning to flex its muscle.

However that doesn't excuse Todt for failing to uphold all rules during his tenure as President.

[Hazmat1]

Given his failure to adhere to ALL the rules you would have found it entirely appropriate to have stripped max of his WC as he raced with piercings contravening the rules.

[sparta6]

Hazmat1 said:

sparta6 said:

Todt was lazy.

Oh come on, try a bit harder. By Your own metric verstappen was awarded a title illegally for contravening driver safety rules.

It’s amusing to everybody else here why you can’t actually admit that. You think Hamilton was awarded titles illegally so therefore so was max

Nope.

For years Ham has looked like a brand ambassador for Elizabeth Duke - all fine as it's his choice. But at work rules are rules.
Todt turned a blind eye.

Ham is good at playing the victim and some people swallow it

[sparta6]

Hazmat1 said:

Given his failure to adhere to ALL the rules you would have found it entirely appropriate to have stripped max of his WC as he raced with piercings contravening the rules.

If the FIA allows for retrospective rule enforcement then yes, absolutely, strip Max of his title so Hamfans can then calm down and relax

But the same would also apply to Ham's WDC's

[PhilAsia]

sparta6 said:

Hazmat1 said:

sparta6 said:

Ham Max is good at playing Horner and swallows

[sparta6]

PhilAsia said:

sparta6 said:

Hazmat1 said:

sparta6 said:

Ham Max is good at playing Horner and swallows

You're in for a long and frustrating season

Ham is transitioning into Vettel 2.0