"Mosley doesn't believe Dennis in spy case"
Discussion
"FIA president Max Mosley thinks it is likely that McLaren boss Ron Dennis did know the real extent of his team's transgressions in the spying controversy this year, despite stating he knew nothing about it."
and
""I quite like him," he said. "But I do despise - I think that's probably the right word - his attitude to Formula One, when he says, for example, that he's passionate about Formula One. That's not true.
"He's passionate about McLaren finishing first and second in every race, which is his job, but it's not the same thing as being passionate about formula one and it's foolish to pretend that it is.""
From: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64467
and
""I quite like him," he said. "But I do despise - I think that's probably the right word - his attitude to Formula One, when he says, for example, that he's passionate about Formula One. That's not true.
"He's passionate about McLaren finishing first and second in every race, which is his job, but it's not the same thing as being passionate about formula one and it's foolish to pretend that it is.""
From: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64467
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Saturday 22 December 21:05
Oswald Jnr said:
"He's passionate about McLaren finishing first and second in every race, which is his job, but it's not the same thing as being passionate about formula one and it's foolish to pretend that it is."
Then why does he admire Ferrari so much, considering the results they've fixed in the past...For someone who wants to draw a line under the spy issue, he don't half go on...
Edited by kevin ritson on Saturday 22 December 21:21
In the same interview (as reported by www.pitpass.com), Mosley had equally classy, magnanimous things to say about JYS:
"Dear old Jackie. He knows nothing about sports governance. Because he never stops talking, he doesn't know much about anything, actually. He just talks. So when people like that say it, you think, 'I just can't.' It's very childish, I suppose.
The neutral regulator of world motorsport also said that he was "relieved" that Raikkonen won the title, rather than Alonso or Hamilton.
"Dear old Jackie. He knows nothing about sports governance. Because he never stops talking, he doesn't know much about anything, actually. He just talks. So when people like that say it, you think, 'I just can't.' It's very childish, I suppose.
The neutral regulator of world motorsport also said that he was "relieved" that Raikkonen won the title, rather than Alonso or Hamilton.
AndrewW-G said:
Fort Jefferson said:
You can allways tell when Ron Dennis is lyeing because his lips move.
somehow I dont think that's correct, even after this years antics I think you'll find that most people still hold Ron Dennis in very high esteem
Edit: This turned out longer than I meant it to and kind of went off on a long tangential excursion, so if you're interested only in the topic, maybe give this a miss.
Over the years, I've followed/participated in, a number of competitive disciplines, some very widespread and well known, some very obscure.. I've noticed that in spite of their vastly different skillsets and mediums, a number of trends remain similar.
It begins as a new environment into which we humans may step and once we've done so, we invariably develop a competitive culture within. At first, only a few are interested, but there are some whom dedicate large amounts of time and careful, studious thought to the nuances, the ebb and flow of the discipline in question, becoming very adept, this is usually thought of in later years as the golden age/era of the sport/discipline/whatever in question.
Next, the level and intensity of competition increases very quickly and soon enough, someone comes up with a methodology that in competitive terms, is extremely effective, to the point where it effectively makes all but a few specialized skillsets obsolete or nearly irrelevant. That or it unbalances the competitive equation badly enough so that one way or another, the whole thing becomings boring or pointless. Enter the rules and their enforcer, the regulator.
The regulator, though almost always born out of goodwill, is supposed to be separate from the discipline itself, not interfering in the competition as such, only causing the competition to take a fluent, appreciable path. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfectly-closed system and no matter what the discipline in question, the rules and regulator ALWAYS become part of the competition, part of the game, evolving to the point where in many disciplines, it is even considered a laudable skill to be able to manipulate the rules and regulators themselves.
Its an interesting, but often unpleasant fact that in regulating a discipline, you are obstructing the natural flow of its procession. As the collective skill level (or additionally, in the case of f1 and others, technology) of a discpline approaches the optimum, the many very small, very fine details that distinguish one competitor from another, proportionately increase in importance and it is here that the competitors, in search of ever more means of advantage, begin to scrutinize the specific nature of the rules and the enforcers, inevitably finding grey areas where they may legitimately push the limit.
This may seem like the beginning of 'cheating' however the limits of the rules are much as the limits of physics, or the human mind/body, with the caveat that when confronted with the fluid evolution of competitive progress they are frequently more porous than those more natural, enduring limitations.. (as an alternate analogy, you could imagine the 'rules' as Max Mosely's head attached to the top of the air intake on each f1 car, with an increasingly bizarre structure of aerodynamic architecture developing around it to negate its awful aerodynamic effect, all subject to restrictions, can't pull the carbon over his eyes, for example..) and so the rule becomes rules, rules; rulebook; rulebook; legal document; etc.. an ongoing frenzy of clauses and sub clauses and clarifications and redefinitions that all attempt to plug the gaps and usually not very effectively, especially with language being such an ambiguous medium.
It eventuates (and upon reflection, rather predictably) that we runup against the limitations and shortcomings of the rulebook a lot more often and in much more frustrating a manner, almost always because rules are necessarily arbitrary (and so in order to be effective, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater), whereas the chaotic limitations of the natural world are so complex, they are effectively the opposite; infinitely malleable, always allowing the ingenuity of a man to bring him progress and profit, especially as the measure of success is not how far the competition has come, but how far ahead one competitor is from the next.
A tactic that neatly circumvents a rule, without violating it, may be seen as cheating and immediately will provoke suspicion among rivals that the line has been crossed - its only a matter of time then, until someone rationalizes cheating, by way of their believing that the opponent is cheating (even if they are not, the damage is done) and so begins the neverending cycle of accusation and counteraccusation, justification, rationalization blah blah..
You'll find closely analogous situations to that of f1, in almost every well known means of competition that has existed for many years and from what I have seen in my time, the odds of it improving within the present system are not good, perhaps completely nil.. what usually happens, is that the regulatory body and ALL its laws get tossed out completely and you begin (almost) anew, with a more thoughtful, streamlined, wholistic, regulatory design (a more aerodynamic head on the intake perhaps!) permitting a second 'golden era' wherein progress (that was previously stifled by claustraphobic rules) is accelerating at a phenomenal rate, making it great entertainment for both the participants and the spectators once again. Of course, this golden age will necessarily be shorter (unless technology at the time happens to make a major leap into a large and previously unexplored dimension)and not so rewarding..
Soo.. to conclude in short, you can get rid of mad max, but it probably won't 'fix' things in any real sense, the roots of the problem go much, much deeper. My guess is that unless the whole thing is revolutionized (and more in the militant sense of the word) then its going to be just as boring a spectator sport as ever, unless you're involved in it deeply enough to appreciate the differentiating nuances that remain and being that its largely a spectator driven enterprise, you will be a disappearing breed..
On the upside, the sooner it bores the planet to death, the sooner things will collapse and start over again.
(assuming world-wide conditions permit or something else doesn't take its place)
... I didn't mean to write that much, it just sort of fell out of my head, sorry if I bored anyone (everyone?) to death.
Over the years, I've followed/participated in, a number of competitive disciplines, some very widespread and well known, some very obscure.. I've noticed that in spite of their vastly different skillsets and mediums, a number of trends remain similar.
It begins as a new environment into which we humans may step and once we've done so, we invariably develop a competitive culture within. At first, only a few are interested, but there are some whom dedicate large amounts of time and careful, studious thought to the nuances, the ebb and flow of the discipline in question, becoming very adept, this is usually thought of in later years as the golden age/era of the sport/discipline/whatever in question.
Next, the level and intensity of competition increases very quickly and soon enough, someone comes up with a methodology that in competitive terms, is extremely effective, to the point where it effectively makes all but a few specialized skillsets obsolete or nearly irrelevant. That or it unbalances the competitive equation badly enough so that one way or another, the whole thing becomings boring or pointless. Enter the rules and their enforcer, the regulator.
The regulator, though almost always born out of goodwill, is supposed to be separate from the discipline itself, not interfering in the competition as such, only causing the competition to take a fluent, appreciable path. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfectly-closed system and no matter what the discipline in question, the rules and regulator ALWAYS become part of the competition, part of the game, evolving to the point where in many disciplines, it is even considered a laudable skill to be able to manipulate the rules and regulators themselves.
Its an interesting, but often unpleasant fact that in regulating a discipline, you are obstructing the natural flow of its procession. As the collective skill level (or additionally, in the case of f1 and others, technology) of a discpline approaches the optimum, the many very small, very fine details that distinguish one competitor from another, proportionately increase in importance and it is here that the competitors, in search of ever more means of advantage, begin to scrutinize the specific nature of the rules and the enforcers, inevitably finding grey areas where they may legitimately push the limit.
This may seem like the beginning of 'cheating' however the limits of the rules are much as the limits of physics, or the human mind/body, with the caveat that when confronted with the fluid evolution of competitive progress they are frequently more porous than those more natural, enduring limitations.. (as an alternate analogy, you could imagine the 'rules' as Max Mosely's head attached to the top of the air intake on each f1 car, with an increasingly bizarre structure of aerodynamic architecture developing around it to negate its awful aerodynamic effect, all subject to restrictions, can't pull the carbon over his eyes, for example..) and so the rule becomes rules, rules; rulebook; rulebook; legal document; etc.. an ongoing frenzy of clauses and sub clauses and clarifications and redefinitions that all attempt to plug the gaps and usually not very effectively, especially with language being such an ambiguous medium.
It eventuates (and upon reflection, rather predictably) that we runup against the limitations and shortcomings of the rulebook a lot more often and in much more frustrating a manner, almost always because rules are necessarily arbitrary (and so in order to be effective, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater), whereas the chaotic limitations of the natural world are so complex, they are effectively the opposite; infinitely malleable, always allowing the ingenuity of a man to bring him progress and profit, especially as the measure of success is not how far the competition has come, but how far ahead one competitor is from the next.
A tactic that neatly circumvents a rule, without violating it, may be seen as cheating and immediately will provoke suspicion among rivals that the line has been crossed - its only a matter of time then, until someone rationalizes cheating, by way of their believing that the opponent is cheating (even if they are not, the damage is done) and so begins the neverending cycle of accusation and counteraccusation, justification, rationalization blah blah..
You'll find closely analogous situations to that of f1, in almost every well known means of competition that has existed for many years and from what I have seen in my time, the odds of it improving within the present system are not good, perhaps completely nil.. what usually happens, is that the regulatory body and ALL its laws get tossed out completely and you begin (almost) anew, with a more thoughtful, streamlined, wholistic, regulatory design (a more aerodynamic head on the intake perhaps!) permitting a second 'golden era' wherein progress (that was previously stifled by claustraphobic rules) is accelerating at a phenomenal rate, making it great entertainment for both the participants and the spectators once again. Of course, this golden age will necessarily be shorter (unless technology at the time happens to make a major leap into a large and previously unexplored dimension)and not so rewarding..
Soo.. to conclude in short, you can get rid of mad max, but it probably won't 'fix' things in any real sense, the roots of the problem go much, much deeper. My guess is that unless the whole thing is revolutionized (and more in the militant sense of the word) then its going to be just as boring a spectator sport as ever, unless you're involved in it deeply enough to appreciate the differentiating nuances that remain and being that its largely a spectator driven enterprise, you will be a disappearing breed..
On the upside, the sooner it bores the planet to death, the sooner things will collapse and start over again.
(assuming world-wide conditions permit or something else doesn't take its place)... I didn't mean to write that much, it just sort of fell out of my head, sorry if I bored anyone (everyone?) to death.
Edited by MM2200 on Sunday 23 December 10:46
He musy go there is no other route now if the FIA doesn't want to come across as totally incompetent.
On one had we have the FIA cancelling the hearing in 08 to finally put a close to the matter, now Max has shot his mouth off again with a vile and childish personal attack on Ron Dennis.
Come on Ron, who must have enough clout to hit this prick where it hurts.
Not only that, Mad Max has launched yet another personal attack at Jackie Stewart. What planet does he think he's on?
The Documentary the other night is clear proof that there is dangerous undertones to everything that Max stands for. A leapoard can never change it's spots and Mad Max is a perfect example of that.
Be afriad, be very afriad...
On one had we have the FIA cancelling the hearing in 08 to finally put a close to the matter, now Max has shot his mouth off again with a vile and childish personal attack on Ron Dennis.
Come on Ron, who must have enough clout to hit this prick where it hurts.
Not only that, Mad Max has launched yet another personal attack at Jackie Stewart. What planet does he think he's on?
The Documentary the other night is clear proof that there is dangerous undertones to everything that Max stands for. A leapoard can never change it's spots and Mad Max is a perfect example of that.
Be afriad, be very afriad...
I still don't understand why the hearing into the 2008 Mclaren has been cancelled in February. At the last Renault 'hearing', there were very grave concerns over IP that the FIA suspect may be in the 08 car, and there would need to be an eight week investigation into the validity of the new car. Then all of a sudden, following a groveling letter of apology from McLaren (from Whitmarsh I noted, not Ron), there seems to be no doubt at all, and the 08 car gets the green light. What happened there then? Did I miss something more tangible? Was there a third party report? Did Ferrari say it was all clear?
My belief is that there couldn't have been any issues at all. Am I being naive?
Just how can we be expected as motorsport enthusiasts, to beleive anything Max says after this blatant display of playgound bullying?
Max doesn't believe Ron over the Spygate affair.... Hmmmmm
My belief is that there couldn't have been any issues at all. Am I being naive?
Just how can we be expected as motorsport enthusiasts, to beleive anything Max says after this blatant display of playgound bullying?
Max doesn't believe Ron over the Spygate affair.... Hmmmmm
RichB said:
Ahonen said:
Heebeegeetee said:
I've come to hate Mosley.
Yep, same here.He is a nasty, vindictive, petty, vile man. The spying affair has ended, yet he just won't let it lie.
Personally, I don't believe a word he says. How can we trust what he says about RD and McLaren when he has openly admitted to favouring Ferrari?
nioks said:
I still don't understand why the hearing into the 2008 Mclaren has been cancelled in February. At the last Renault 'hearing', there were very grave concerns over IP that the FIA suspect may be in the 08 car, and there would need to be an eight week investigation into the validity of the new car. Then all of a sudden, following a groveling letter of apology from McLaren (from Whitmarsh I noted, not Ron), there seems to be no doubt at all, and the 08 car gets the green light. What happened there then? Did I miss something more tangible? Was there a third party report? Did Ferrari say it was all clear?
My belief is that there couldn't have been any issues at all. Am I being naive?
Just how can we be expected as motorsport enthusiasts, to beleive anything Max says after this blatant display of playgound bullying?
Max doesn't believe Ron over the Spygate affair.... Hmmmmm
The day (IIRC) before the McLaren "apology", the FIA publicised its "findings" regarding the '08 McLaren. There were a couple of areas (tyre gas and brake bias adjuster) about which they claimed to have suspicions that McLaren had been influenced or could be influenced by Stepney/Coughlan conversations.My belief is that there couldn't have been any issues at all. Am I being naive?
Just how can we be expected as motorsport enthusiasts, to beleive anything Max says after this blatant display of playgound bullying?
Max doesn't believe Ron over the Spygate affair.... Hmmmmm
When one read this letter, the evidence and arguments were thin as usual but, also as usual, the FIA held the whip hand.
In order to be able to get back to racing, McLaren agreed to write their letter (which, despite media headlines, actually says nothing), and to not develop the brake bias adjuster, the use of new tyre gas, or change the fuel filling system (AIUI) until after the '08 season. In return, the FIA agreed to drop the matter.
The February meeting would have been for discussing the above, so this agreement precluded it.
As regards whether one can believe Mosley...
The comments in the original post are hardly surprising.
The flow of IP from team to team is constant and ungovernable. It's very hard to legislate to prevent it or indeed have a strong case for prosecuting those that do it.
The cases that have come about recently and their outcomes have merely demonstrated the nasty political undercurrents in F1 and the FIA.
Ron Dennis has no obligation to be unbiased or even to act in a professional manner, but he has. Max Mosely surely must do, as the man in his position and simply hasn't.
I can't see his position being tenurable for much longer quite frankly.
The flow of IP from team to team is constant and ungovernable. It's very hard to legislate to prevent it or indeed have a strong case for prosecuting those that do it.
The cases that have come about recently and their outcomes have merely demonstrated the nasty political undercurrents in F1 and the FIA.
Ron Dennis has no obligation to be unbiased or even to act in a professional manner, but he has. Max Mosely surely must do, as the man in his position and simply hasn't.
I can't see his position being tenurable for much longer quite frankly.
Frik said:
The comments in the original post are hardly surprising.
The flow of IP from team to team is constant and ungovernable. It's very hard to legislate to prevent it or indeed have a strong case for prosecuting those that do it.
The cases that have come about recently and their outcomes have merely demonstrated the nasty political undercurrents in F1 and the FIA.
Ron Dennis has no obligation to be unbiased or even to act in a professional manner, but he has. Max Mosely surely must do, as the man in his position and simply hasn't.
I can't see his position being tenurable for much longer quite frankly.
Mosley statement in 1991, after Balestre had been FIA President for less than 13 years:The flow of IP from team to team is constant and ungovernable. It's very hard to legislate to prevent it or indeed have a strong case for prosecuting those that do it.
The cases that have come about recently and their outcomes have merely demonstrated the nasty political undercurrents in F1 and the FIA.
Ron Dennis has no obligation to be unbiased or even to act in a professional manner, but he has. Max Mosely surely must do, as the man in his position and simply hasn't.
I can't see his position being tenurable for much longer quite frankly.
"I think you might agree that to elect the same person for a further four years and thus have him presiding for a total of 17 years, is rather too long."
Mosley has been FIA President for 16 years.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff