The truth about Max Mosley
Discussion
I think that is the creation of Tom Rubython who has had one or two run-ins with the libel law in his time so perhaps one should be a bit careful of anything that can't be checked. However, that's not to say that it necessarily to be distrusted. A civil court is not concerned with whether what has been said/written is true or not, the only test is can what has been said/written be proven on the balance of probabilities.
Rubython was in court three times in one week, twice in front of the same judge, for articles that he had written.
That said, he's an entertaining writer. But I always keep the sodium chloride handy.
Rubython was in court three times in one week, twice in front of the same judge, for articles that he had written.
That said, he's an entertaining writer. But I always keep the sodium chloride handy.
FourWheelDrift said:
It's not a repost, 4WD, although it has been linked to from GM before.The way I read it, there was an original article composed perhaps 2-ish years ago, and that article was carefully thought-through and crafted. Then, it appears to me, the assault on McLaren happened last year, and that violation occasioned the author's adding a sort-of summary of that affair onto his original article. You can see how the quality of the analysis and writing changes when the author gets to the events of '07.
As said above, the article does contain some extraordinary allegations. One or two are so inflammatory that - if they were untrue - one would have expected the litigious Mosley to have had his defamation counsel all over the article like white on rice. After all, we are talking about the guy who was so...delicate...that he sued a newspaper for using the word "witch-hunt", which seemed to many of us to be so obviously factual that the only libel involved was the claim that it was a libel.
Instead of seeking redress via the law, Mosley seems to have completely ignored these sensational allegations, which act of ignorance some might construe as having been motivated by the subject's fear of a court's examining what he really did or did not do.
flemke said:
As said above, the article does contain some extraordinary allegations. One or two are so inflammatory that - if they were untrue - one would have expected the litigious Mosley to have had his defamation counsel all over the article like white on rice.
I was too nervous to repeat them, even with the prefix of: it has been reported that . . . Mind you Rubython has shown an inclination or two to take a risk. Massa's overtake in Canada would be seen as reserved against some of the things he's written. The bit about BMW is stunning. One would assume he has a reliable source. But it's published with his name on it so, if it isn't true, why is there no civil action? To someone of MRM's willingness to let his lawyers buy this year's Lexus, letting it go might be seen as tantamount to accepting it. But perhaps not.
Derek Smith said:
The bit about BMW is stunning. One would assume he has a reliable source. But it's published with his name on it so, if it isn't true, why is there no civil action? To someone of MRM's willingness to let his lawyers buy this year's Lexus, letting it go might be seen as tantamount to accepting it. But perhaps not.
Equally gob-smacking, it seems to me, is the allegation that Mosley trousered a £300M "gift" from Bernie, presumably as a token of appreciation for Max's help through the years - such as facilitating the non-competitive, 100-year exclusive contract.If that were true, it would be a breach of Presidential obligations on a titanic scale.
Having edited a magazine for four years and written all my adult life I can say with some certainty that it is difficult to perform at one’s best given deadlines.
Another Rubython revelation is here. The title, 'We couldn't make it up', may seem a little ironic if you study what he says:
http://www.sportspromedia.com/bishop.htm
It has so many errors that it is difficult to know where to start.
Mind you, there’re plenty of faults in the first article. MRM did not spend the first years of his life in prison. He was farmed out to a nanny. Whilst this might sound harsh to you and me, it would have been what would have happened to him in any case. That’s what posh people did in those days. It’s a small point but was so early on in the article that it does make you wonder how dependable the rest is.
In Rubython’s attack on McLaren in the second article he makes one major, and quite stunning, error. He says that McLaren were found guilty of spying on Ferrari. That is, of course, just what they weren’t found guilty of. The 780pp document was in Coughlan’s possession but that was for his own reasons and not for the benefit of McLaren.
The only other people involved were dlRosa and Alonso who sought confidential information from Coughlan. Again, as it was not shared with Hamilton or anyone else in the team. So by any definition of spying, McLaren, as a corporate entity, did not spy.
Rubython defends Renault’s behaviour by suggesting that McLaren got its figures wrong:
“[McLaren] said that it was not 18 Renault employees that had viewed the McLaren data but nine. It said that it had not been uploaded to 11 computers but just one and only two Renault staff had viewed that. The greatest error of all was to state that 780 technical drawings had been stole by Mackereth and put on the floppy disks. The true figure was 18 drawings.”
Or, to put it another way, McLaren Internationl was find $100,000,000 for having no information about the Ferrari car on their computers or in the hands of anyone but three rogue employees. Renault, on the other hand, did have McLaren information but were let off.
It’s like a chap being charged with embezzlement of £100,000 and the defence suggesting that he should go free because it was only £10,000. After all, 11 Renault staff or 18, it still tends to suggest that it was known by the company as a whole.
I’m not bashing Renault. If McLaren were cavalier with their secret information then they only have themselves to blame.
The thing I would say is that it might be best to view all of Rubython’s articles with a degree of scepticism.
Another Rubython revelation is here. The title, 'We couldn't make it up', may seem a little ironic if you study what he says:
http://www.sportspromedia.com/bishop.htm
It has so many errors that it is difficult to know where to start.
Mind you, there’re plenty of faults in the first article. MRM did not spend the first years of his life in prison. He was farmed out to a nanny. Whilst this might sound harsh to you and me, it would have been what would have happened to him in any case. That’s what posh people did in those days. It’s a small point but was so early on in the article that it does make you wonder how dependable the rest is.
In Rubython’s attack on McLaren in the second article he makes one major, and quite stunning, error. He says that McLaren were found guilty of spying on Ferrari. That is, of course, just what they weren’t found guilty of. The 780pp document was in Coughlan’s possession but that was for his own reasons and not for the benefit of McLaren.
The only other people involved were dlRosa and Alonso who sought confidential information from Coughlan. Again, as it was not shared with Hamilton or anyone else in the team. So by any definition of spying, McLaren, as a corporate entity, did not spy.
Rubython defends Renault’s behaviour by suggesting that McLaren got its figures wrong:
“[McLaren] said that it was not 18 Renault employees that had viewed the McLaren data but nine. It said that it had not been uploaded to 11 computers but just one and only two Renault staff had viewed that. The greatest error of all was to state that 780 technical drawings had been stole by Mackereth and put on the floppy disks. The true figure was 18 drawings.”
Or, to put it another way, McLaren Internationl was find $100,000,000 for having no information about the Ferrari car on their computers or in the hands of anyone but three rogue employees. Renault, on the other hand, did have McLaren information but were let off.
It’s like a chap being charged with embezzlement of £100,000 and the defence suggesting that he should go free because it was only £10,000. After all, 11 Renault staff or 18, it still tends to suggest that it was known by the company as a whole.
I’m not bashing Renault. If McLaren were cavalier with their secret information then they only have themselves to blame.
The thing I would say is that it might be best to view all of Rubython’s articles with a degree of scepticism.
Derek Smith said:
The only other people involved were dlRosa and Alonso who sought confidential information from Coughlan. Again, as it was not shared with Hamilton or anyone else in the team.
The FIA report published on 5/12/07 leads me to disagree with you, but we've had this conversation before. 
The two alleged points that I found the most incredible in the article were the ones mentioned above - the BMW incident and the $300m payment - surely grounds to sue if there was any element of untruth. Maybe there will be a case at some time in the future when MM has sorted the more pressing claim against invasion of his privacy, we will have to wait and see. As far as I know this article was first published before the News Of The World story so maybe no action will be taken.
The article did reminded me of the the EU investigation of F1 which I never understood at the time, and the information in the article confused me further. How you can be under investigation for anti competitive behaviour and do a deal for 100 years with the incumbent without going out to tender and get the OK I just can't figure.
The article did reminded me of the the EU investigation of F1 which I never understood at the time, and the information in the article confused me further. How you can be under investigation for anti competitive behaviour and do a deal for 100 years with the incumbent without going out to tender and get the OK I just can't figure.
The BMW allegation, about the crash testing, might not be as shocking as it first seems.
If the 5 had a bad result in the first official crash tests, BMW would expect to take the results away, improve things and try again before the results proper are gathered and published.
I would imagine, if he had blocked the second test and was questioned about it, that MM would simply say that there was no legal mandate for him to have to agree to re-testing vehicles, and that when he'd done it in the past, he was simply being overly kind. Then he would go on to say how BMW had made X billion Euros in sales because of very good results from crash retests he'd allowed in the past.
The man is nothing if not shrewd.
If the 5 had a bad result in the first official crash tests, BMW would expect to take the results away, improve things and try again before the results proper are gathered and published.
I would imagine, if he had blocked the second test and was questioned about it, that MM would simply say that there was no legal mandate for him to have to agree to re-testing vehicles, and that when he'd done it in the past, he was simply being overly kind. Then he would go on to say how BMW had made X billion Euros in sales because of very good results from crash retests he'd allowed in the past.
The man is nothing if not shrewd.
Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 18th June 15:50
andyps said:
The article did reminded me of the the EU investigation of F1 which I never understood at the time, and the information in the article confused me further. How you can be under investigation for anti competitive behaviour and do a deal for 100 years with the incumbent without going out to tender and get the OK I just can't figure.
Because the chairmanship of the EU Competition Commission changed from the guy who had originally brought the action against the FIA. The new commissioner was Mario Monti.
I canna re-amember. Where's-a he-a from?
Personally i found the whole article really quite depressing. I don't mean that in a naive sense, as in i have never been aware of the political games played out behind the scenes, because i am. But perhaps not to the extent that this article, even if partly true, exposes.
As a fan of motorsport and F1 in particular, it is sad to realise that the entire make-up of the sport is ruled by these power hungry egotistical old gits so sick with their own greed.
Its no wonder so many sponsors and car manufacturers are reluctant to invest in F1 when its governance and commercial arrangments are so suspect. On a brighter note, they are old, getting older, and their money won't keep them alive forever.
As a fan of motorsport and F1 in particular, it is sad to realise that the entire make-up of the sport is ruled by these power hungry egotistical old gits so sick with their own greed.
Its no wonder so many sponsors and car manufacturers are reluctant to invest in F1 when its governance and commercial arrangments are so suspect. On a brighter note, they are old, getting older, and their money won't keep them alive forever.
Here's an interesting view of the Mosleygate/FIA saga. Quite enlightening.
It is a press release from the Caravan Club (a full member of Region 1 of the FIA) dated earlier this month.
"STATEMENT FROM THE CARAVAN CLUB – MAX MOSLEY
Following the FIA’s Extraordinary General Assembly on 3 June 2008.
Trevor Watson, Director General of The Caravan Club, in a statement today has said that the sad fact that Max Mosley remains as President of the FIA following the Extraordinary General Assembly held in Paris today is a testament to the lack of effective governance within the FIA regarding senior post holders, and a voting system designed to avoid motoring clubs and open air organisations who do not have a keen involvement in motor sport, having any real say in how the Federation is governed.
The Caravan Club is a full member of Region 1 of the FIA – Region 1 covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa – and has a seat on the Management Council of the Region. Director General, Trevor Watson, is a Vice President of the Region, a member of the Finance Committee for the Region and Chairman of the FIA Camping and Caravanning Commission, but like many other organisations was still not entitled to vote at the Extraordinary General Assembly."
The arrangements of the FIA begger understanding.
It is a press release from the Caravan Club (a full member of Region 1 of the FIA) dated earlier this month.
"STATEMENT FROM THE CARAVAN CLUB – MAX MOSLEY
Following the FIA’s Extraordinary General Assembly on 3 June 2008.
Trevor Watson, Director General of The Caravan Club, in a statement today has said that the sad fact that Max Mosley remains as President of the FIA following the Extraordinary General Assembly held in Paris today is a testament to the lack of effective governance within the FIA regarding senior post holders, and a voting system designed to avoid motoring clubs and open air organisations who do not have a keen involvement in motor sport, having any real say in how the Federation is governed.
The Caravan Club is a full member of Region 1 of the FIA – Region 1 covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa – and has a seat on the Management Council of the Region. Director General, Trevor Watson, is a Vice President of the Region, a member of the Finance Committee for the Region and Chairman of the FIA Camping and Caravanning Commission, but like many other organisations was still not entitled to vote at the Extraordinary General Assembly."
The arrangements of the FIA begger understanding.
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 18th June 19:25
flemke said:
andyps said:
The article did reminded me of the the EU investigation of F1 which I never understood at the time, and the information in the article confused me further. How you can be under investigation for anti competitive behaviour and do a deal for 100 years with the incumbent without going out to tender and get the OK I just can't figure.
Because the chairmanship of the EU Competition Commission changed from the guy who had originally brought the action against the FIA. The new commissioner was Mario Monti.
I canna re-amember. Where's-a he-a from?
Derek Smith said:
The Caravan Club is a full member of Region 1 of the FIA – Region 1 covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa – and has a seat on the Management Council of the Region. Director General, Trevor Watson, is a Vice President of the Region, a member of the Finance Committee for the Region and Chairman of the FIA Camping and Caravanning Commission, but like many other organisations was still not entitled to vote at the Extraordinary General Assembly
I do hope they are considering whether to continue their membership of the FIA. I presume being a member costs them money, and one reason for being a member would be to have some influence. However, if membership does not include the benefit of any sort of influence it would seem to be commercially crazy to pay anything for nothing.andyps said:
Thanks Flemke. That obviously passed me by at the time.
---Headings from EU complaint:1) The FIA uses its power to block series which compete with its own events
2) The FIA has used this power to force a competing series out of the market
3) The FIA uses its power abusively to acquire all the television rights to international motor sports events
4) FOA and the FIA protect the Formula One championship from competition by tying up everything that is needed to stage a rival championship
Full text, pre-Monti:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?refe...
---Typical knee-jerk, "we're perfect, so fook off" response from FIA:
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns02063.html
---Summary of Monti agreement:
http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/archive/index.php/...
---An interesting take:
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2001/jan31/business.h...
Are you determined to stop me working?
Very interesting reading there, and it helps to fill some gaps in my knowledge/memory. Still interesting that between them MM and BE managed to CONvince the EU people there is competition.
One very interesting comment in the atlasf1 article is this
Very interesting reading there, and it helps to fill some gaps in my knowledge/memory. Still interesting that between them MM and BE managed to CONvince the EU people there is competition.
One very interesting comment in the atlasf1 article is this
atlasf1 said:
according to the President of Ferrari, Luca di Montezemolo, that is how Ecclestone operates: when he wants to develop a consensus among the teams (and now the manufacturers), first he convinces Ferrari of something he wants to do and once they sign off, he goes to the others and says "See, Ferrari signed, now how about you?"
About summarises it all I think. Just a shame they go along with it.flemke said:
andyps said:
The article did reminded me of the the EU investigation of F1 which I never understood at the time, and the information in the article confused me further. How you can be under investigation for anti competitive behaviour and do a deal for 100 years with the incumbent without going out to tender and get the OK I just can't figure.
Because the chairmanship of the EU Competition Commission changed from the guy who had originally brought the action against the FIA. The new commissioner was Mario Monti.
I canna re-amember. Where's-a he-a from?
If MM's movement into the role, with the background you suggest, has helped smooth the way then it is even worse than I thought!
Derek Smith said:
Having edited a magazine for four years and written all my adult life I can say with some certainty that it is difficult to perform at one’s best given deadlines.
Another Rubython revelation is here. The title, 'We couldn't make it up', may seem a little ironic if you study what he says:
http://www.sportspromedia.com/bishop.htm
It has so many errors that it is difficult to know where to start.
Mind you, there’re plenty of faults in the first article. MRM did not spend the first years of his life in prison. He was farmed out to a nanny. Whilst this might sound harsh to you and me, it would have been what would have happened to him in any case. That’s what posh people did in those days. It’s a small point but was so early on in the article that it does make you wonder how dependable the rest is.
In Rubython’s attack on McLaren in the second article he makes one major, and quite stunning, error. He says that McLaren were found guilty of spying on Ferrari. That is, of course, just what they weren’t found guilty of. The 780pp document was in Coughlan’s possession but that was for his own reasons and not for the benefit of McLaren.
The only other people involved were dlRosa and Alonso who sought confidential information from Coughlan. Again, as it was not shared with Hamilton or anyone else in the team. So by any definition of spying, McLaren, as a corporate entity, did not spy.
Rubython defends Renault’s behaviour by suggesting that McLaren got its figures wrong:
“[McLaren] said that it was not 18 Renault employees that had viewed the McLaren data but nine. It said that it had not been uploaded to 11 computers but just one and only two Renault staff had viewed that. The greatest error of all was to state that 780 technical drawings had been stole by Mackereth and put on the floppy disks. The true figure was 18 drawings.”
Or, to put it another way, McLaren Internationl was find $100,000,000 for having no information about the Ferrari car on their computers or in the hands of anyone but three rogue employees. Renault, on the other hand, did have McLaren information but were let off.
It’s like a chap being charged with embezzlement of £100,000 and the defence suggesting that he should go free because it was only £10,000. After all, 11 Renault staff or 18, it still tends to suggest that it was known by the company as a whole.
I’m not bashing Renault. If McLaren were cavalier with their secret information then they only have themselves to blame.
The thing I would say is that it might be best to view all of Rubython’s articles with a degree of scepticism.
To be honest, if all you can find to criticise the article is the above, you shouldn't bother. Most of what you say about the Mclaren issue is patently incorrect. The world doesn't refer to it as the 'F1 spy scandal' for no reason.Another Rubython revelation is here. The title, 'We couldn't make it up', may seem a little ironic if you study what he says:
http://www.sportspromedia.com/bishop.htm
It has so many errors that it is difficult to know where to start.
Mind you, there’re plenty of faults in the first article. MRM did not spend the first years of his life in prison. He was farmed out to a nanny. Whilst this might sound harsh to you and me, it would have been what would have happened to him in any case. That’s what posh people did in those days. It’s a small point but was so early on in the article that it does make you wonder how dependable the rest is.
In Rubython’s attack on McLaren in the second article he makes one major, and quite stunning, error. He says that McLaren were found guilty of spying on Ferrari. That is, of course, just what they weren’t found guilty of. The 780pp document was in Coughlan’s possession but that was for his own reasons and not for the benefit of McLaren.
The only other people involved were dlRosa and Alonso who sought confidential information from Coughlan. Again, as it was not shared with Hamilton or anyone else in the team. So by any definition of spying, McLaren, as a corporate entity, did not spy.
Rubython defends Renault’s behaviour by suggesting that McLaren got its figures wrong:
“[McLaren] said that it was not 18 Renault employees that had viewed the McLaren data but nine. It said that it had not been uploaded to 11 computers but just one and only two Renault staff had viewed that. The greatest error of all was to state that 780 technical drawings had been stole by Mackereth and put on the floppy disks. The true figure was 18 drawings.”
Or, to put it another way, McLaren Internationl was find $100,000,000 for having no information about the Ferrari car on their computers or in the hands of anyone but three rogue employees. Renault, on the other hand, did have McLaren information but were let off.
It’s like a chap being charged with embezzlement of £100,000 and the defence suggesting that he should go free because it was only £10,000. After all, 11 Renault staff or 18, it still tends to suggest that it was known by the company as a whole.
I’m not bashing Renault. If McLaren were cavalier with their secret information then they only have themselves to blame.
The thing I would say is that it might be best to view all of Rubython’s articles with a degree of scepticism.
There is one simple question that needs answering after reading that link from the OP.
Why is there no one within the motorsport industry with big enough balls to take Mad Max to the cleaners over these allegations? If this had been going on in industry, the guy would have been locked up by and all his assests taken away...
Shame there could not be a helicopter/private jet crash with Max on board.
F1 could do with a fresh outlook, and to be honest, Bernie should be on that same plane
Why is it that it's always the greats like Colin McRae and co who die in such terrible circumstances, yet pricks like Mad Max and Bernie seem to go through life screwing everyone and anyone and getting away with murder (and I wouldn't put that past Mosley either!!!)
Why is there no one within the motorsport industry with big enough balls to take Mad Max to the cleaners over these allegations? If this had been going on in industry, the guy would have been locked up by and all his assests taken away...
Shame there could not be a helicopter/private jet crash with Max on board.
F1 could do with a fresh outlook, and to be honest, Bernie should be on that same plane
Why is it that it's always the greats like Colin McRae and co who die in such terrible circumstances, yet pricks like Mad Max and Bernie seem to go through life screwing everyone and anyone and getting away with murder (and I wouldn't put that past Mosley either!!!)
Edited by motormania on Friday 20th June 01:24
motormania said:
There is one simple question that needs answering after reading that link from the OP.
Why is there no one within the motorsport industry with big enough balls to take Mad Max to the cleaners over these allegations? If this had been going on in industry, the guy would have been locked up by and all his assests taken away...
The answer to that is the same reason that he survived the vote of confidence. Unfortunately he has built up so much power that people are afraid of the consequences of taking him on - if the allegations are 100% cast iron true then maybe it could be done, but for anyone else involved in anything related to FIA activity on a commercial basis the risk of being the whistleblower and wrong would mean, at least, the loss of their livelihood.Why is there no one within the motorsport industry with big enough balls to take Mad Max to the cleaners over these allegations? If this had been going on in industry, the guy would have been locked up by and all his assests taken away...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff