"Mosley doesn't believe Dennis in spy case"
Discussion
flemke said:
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.
flemke said:
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.
Thanks to MM2200 for an interesting point.
But I think the deire to get rid of MM is more about him than about the racing.
Yes the rules have to be re-written and Moseley has to go but those two events are not tied together. Unless you consider the rules wont change until Moseley goes and that is entirely possible.
But I think the deire to get rid of MM is more about him than about the racing.
Yes the rules have to be re-written and Moseley has to go but those two events are not tied together. Unless you consider the rules wont change until Moseley goes and that is entirely possible.
Yes, I see that its more about dislike for the man himself, so my comments were probably inappropriate for this particular discussion.
I should point out, however, that the reason people are so unhappy with MM is because he exists in such a powerful role within the sport, which shows just how much f1 racing has come to be about the governance of it. If he were still more blatantly corrupt, but in terms of impact on the sport, effectually irrelevant, no one (meaning the racers and fans) would care.
In that sense, the two issues are tied together. My feeling is that when he is replaced, one of two situations is most probable to emerge; One, that someone else whom is corrupt or corruptible will take MM's place and follow much the same path as his two predecessors or; two, that a man of good and honest character, with only the wellbeing of the sport in mind, will take the position.
In the case of two, I suspect that man will quickly find himself alienated by the fact that he will not be swayed to one or another agenda and so will eventually resign out of frustration at his inability to effect his wishes - or if he should make a partisan error of judgement, then so resign out of integrity - in just the fashion that someone like MM should do, but won't.
I should point out, however, that the reason people are so unhappy with MM is because he exists in such a powerful role within the sport, which shows just how much f1 racing has come to be about the governance of it. If he were still more blatantly corrupt, but in terms of impact on the sport, effectually irrelevant, no one (meaning the racers and fans) would care.
In that sense, the two issues are tied together. My feeling is that when he is replaced, one of two situations is most probable to emerge; One, that someone else whom is corrupt or corruptible will take MM's place and follow much the same path as his two predecessors or; two, that a man of good and honest character, with only the wellbeing of the sport in mind, will take the position.
In the case of two, I suspect that man will quickly find himself alienated by the fact that he will not be swayed to one or another agenda and so will eventually resign out of frustration at his inability to effect his wishes - or if he should make a partisan error of judgement, then so resign out of integrity - in just the fashion that someone like MM should do, but won't.
Edited by MM2200 on Tuesday 25th December 22:15
F1 has always involved the movement of technical info between teams.
Look at the 'shadow/arrows' incident.
I'm 100% certain that March (during the time mosley was there) gained info in this way.
It's Mosley (aka General Dip5hit) trying to stamp his authority upon a sport that he supposedly controls but where no one respects him!
Any Ideas when he'll leave FIFA and take up his position on the board of FIAT?
Look at the 'shadow/arrows' incident.
I'm 100% certain that March (during the time mosley was there) gained info in this way.
It's Mosley (aka General Dip5hit) trying to stamp his authority upon a sport that he supposedly controls but where no one respects him!
Any Ideas when he'll leave FIFA and take up his position on the board of FIAT?
MM2200 said:
I should point out, however, that the reason people are so unhappy with MM is because he exists in such a powerful role within the sport
You are MadMax and I claim my £5!The reason people are upset with TheMadOne is two or three fold.
Firstly, as president of the governing board, what he thinks about drivers or teams should be kept private regardless of what he thinks about people. He is in a very unique position, and its a position of impartiality. He cannot and should not comment on anything in public.
Secondly, hes mad as a hatter in my opinion. There are more sane people in old peoples homes up and down the country.
Thirdly, he has shown throughout this year a bias against McL. There has always been a bias towards Ferrari (remember the wheel ovens?) but this year it got quite stupid. Hes about as impartial as a mum talking about her favourite child.
My nickname here could be a little unfortunate. 
Especially as a mnemonic!
I'm too new and not knowledgable enough about f1 to know all of what MM has done over the years, my assessment comes only from a familiarity with the structure of organisation and competition.
From what I've read here the fact of his corruption is beyond question, although published news articles I've read seem less willing to say as much. (not that that is surprising)
I think I don't have a lot else of worth to say on this topic, so I'll sit back and watch with interest how this affair resolves itself.
Especially as a mnemonic!I'm too new and not knowledgable enough about f1 to know all of what MM has done over the years, my assessment comes only from a familiarity with the structure of organisation and competition.
From what I've read here the fact of his corruption is beyond question, although published news articles I've read seem less willing to say as much. (not that that is surprising)
I think I don't have a lot else of worth to say on this topic, so I'll sit back and watch with interest how this affair resolves itself.
MM2200 said:
My nickname here could be a little unfortunate. Especially as a mnemonic!
I'm too new and not knowledgable enough about f1 to know all of what MM has done over the years, my assessment comes only from a familiarity with the structure of organisation and competition.
From what I've read here the fact of his corruption is beyond question, although published news articles I've read seem less willing to say as much. (not that that is surprising)
I think I don't have a lot else of worth to say on this topic, so I'll sit back and watch with interest how this affair resolves itself.
I think you will find that many people had generally good things to say about his first dozen years as FIA President (notwithstanding his despicable lobbying of the European Commission to install automatic speed limiters in all road cars). Especially as a mnemonic!I'm too new and not knowledgable enough about f1 to know all of what MM has done over the years, my assessment comes only from a familiarity with the structure of organisation and competition.
From what I've read here the fact of his corruption is beyond question, although published news articles I've read seem less willing to say as much. (not that that is surprising)
I think I don't have a lot else of worth to say on this topic, so I'll sit back and watch with interest how this affair resolves itself.
Paul Stoddart, and others, have said that they thought that Mosley changed in about 2004. I do not think that it is a coincidence that that was just after the manufacturers' efforts to alter or break away from their deal with Bernie and the FIA began to develop momentum. At about the same time, there were increasing calls for Mosley to step down (he 'lost' a key FIA policy vote in late 2003, which catalysed his resignation charade).
One can like what the guy has done overall, or dislike it, but there is no justification for his cheap shots at Jackie Stewart and Martin Brundle, nor for his recent comments that he was "relieved" that Raikkonen won the WDC and that Ferrari are the "most important" team in F1.
This sort of ill-judged, intemperate rhetoric is not acceptable from the President of any serious, even-handed organisation.
MM2200 said:
I should point out, however, that the reason people are so unhappy with MM is because he exists in such a powerful role within the sport, which shows just how much f1 racing has come to be about the governance of it.
Meself, i don't agree with this. A sport like F1 has to have a strong figure at the top, but when that figure is corrupt the sport is stuffed. The leader has to remain impartial, and any personal dislikes must be kept out of it, for due respect to everybody else in the sport, inc the fans.And i wouldn't "f1 racing has come to be about the governance of it", to my mind motor racing has always been about the governance of it, right from the very start of it all. Which is why it needs a strong and honest hand on the tiller.
Ron Dennis might actually be the anti-Christ, Max Mosley might be the little baby Jesus and perhaps Jackie Stewart really is the donkey; makes not one jot of difference. The President of a sports governing body, even if he is the annointed son of god, must not go around expressing his hunches and opinions in public. It obviously brings into doubt his impartiality and therefore directly undermines the credibility of the FIA. This is kindergarten stuff. How can he possibly think his behavour is acceptable? How hard is it to say "no comment"? If the sport were governed properly, at this stage either resignation or the boot should be automatic. The governing body itself should clearly be seen as the arbiter of any disputes and the source of regulation. The presidential role ought to be about ensuring the smooth-running of the governing body and being the public face of the governing body; the referees' referee, not king of the F1ing castle.
ATG said:
Ron Dennis might actually be the anti-Christ, Max Mosley might be the little baby Jesus and perhaps Jackie Stewart really is the donkey; makes not one jot of difference. The President of a sports governing body, even if he is the annointed son of god, must not go around expressing his hunches and opinions in public. It obviously brings into doubt his impartiality and therefore directly undermines the credibility of the FIA. This is kindergarten stuff. How can he possibly think his behavour is acceptable? How hard is it to say "no comment"? If the sport were governed properly, at this stage either resignation or the boot should be automatic. The governing body itself should clearly be seen as the arbiter of any disputes and the source of regulation. The presidential role ought to be about ensuring the smooth-running of the governing body and being the public face of the governing body; the referees' referee, not king of the F1ing castle.
I wouldn't disagree with your sentiments, but I think the picture could be looked at a different way.There is nothing special about the FIA. It's merely a collection of clubs (including both RACs, the IAM and the Caravanning and Camping Club) that have appointed themselves as authorities and arbiters on various matters related to motoring, and persuaded or conned governments, the media and commercial operators into allowing them to do that. I don't recall anything about the FIA's natural authority written in the Bible (although I admit that I skipped over most of it).
One can argue, as you do, that the FIA needs to be neutral and above the battle.
Similarly, one can argue that the FIA is just a quasi-commercial operation with its own axes to grind, and that it is free to do whatever it wishes. That would be the NASCAR model. Whether one model or the other is more workable doesn't matter, just as the FIA doesn't matter.
What does matter, however, is honesty. One of the things that make Mosley such a nauseating character is that he plays both sides of the fence. Mosley presumes to occupy the moral high ground of neutrality, fairness, openness and principle. Simultaneously, he pursues an agenda which is so prejudiced in favour of some parties and against some others that it takes one's breath away.
You can be neutral, or you can be biased, but it is impossible to be both at once. The FIA's unrelenting hypocrisy is the root of why so many people hold it in contempt.
RobbieMeister said:
So many people, I wonder?
In conversation about the last F1 season on Christmas night with a frenchman who is a casual observer of F1 (he watches the races but not much else) I was told: "I think Max Mosley is quite fair".
I should have said, "so many intelligent people". Sorry for my imprecision.In conversation about the last F1 season on Christmas night with a frenchman who is a casual observer of F1 (he watches the races but not much else) I was told: "I think Max Mosley is quite fair".
I'm sure that that Frenchman's opinion had not in the least been influenced by Mosley's decision to let Renault off the hook shortly after it had hosed McLaren.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff