Eccelstone, Mosely & George Carman QC
Discussion
A very old (and very long), but very interesting article on the inner workings of the FIA.
EDIT: Replaced with link to article http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?3,41044
For those want an 'executive summary' here is my attempt. (but let me add that it is not nearly an adequate replacement for reading the article and I will not be held responsible for any misinterprations or mistakes I make in summarizing
)
-George Carman, on his deathbed, tells his son of all the stories he kept quiet about due to client confidelity
-Dominic Carman, Georges son, talks to a reporter here about Georges involvement in the 1994 benetton refuelling-fire trial (in which he has been hired by benetton)
-George realises there is effectively no hope of a win, considers simply pleading guilty
-Mosely, Eccelstone invite George to a meeting just prior to the trial, where George infers that they (being judge and jury member, respectively) want a quick and painless resolution that avoids expulsion of Benetton from f1, presumably in order to maintain interest in the championship and avoid the rising star Michael Schumacher (and it is assumed, his rising number of TV-watching fans) from being expelled
-Mosely appoints an inexperienced lawyer from the FIA and provides him with zero preparation for the prosection
-Various bits of dodgy evidence are arranged and provided to George for his suit
-At trial, George pleads guilty, Mosely uses this as excuse to skip the entire prosecution phase and move straight to George's mitigation speech, in which he invokes the dodgy evidence and requests simply that benetton not be punished
-Benetton escapes punishment to general outrage of media and f1 community
-Mosely "explains" the judgement and generally amazes and infuriates with the total lack of sense in his arguments
EDIT: Replaced with link to article http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?3,41044
For those want an 'executive summary' here is my attempt. (but let me add that it is not nearly an adequate replacement for reading the article and I will not be held responsible for any misinterprations or mistakes I make in summarizing
)-George Carman, on his deathbed, tells his son of all the stories he kept quiet about due to client confidelity
-Dominic Carman, Georges son, talks to a reporter here about Georges involvement in the 1994 benetton refuelling-fire trial (in which he has been hired by benetton)
-George realises there is effectively no hope of a win, considers simply pleading guilty
-Mosely, Eccelstone invite George to a meeting just prior to the trial, where George infers that they (being judge and jury member, respectively) want a quick and painless resolution that avoids expulsion of Benetton from f1, presumably in order to maintain interest in the championship and avoid the rising star Michael Schumacher (and it is assumed, his rising number of TV-watching fans) from being expelled
-Mosely appoints an inexperienced lawyer from the FIA and provides him with zero preparation for the prosection
-Various bits of dodgy evidence are arranged and provided to George for his suit
-At trial, George pleads guilty, Mosely uses this as excuse to skip the entire prosecution phase and move straight to George's mitigation speech, in which he invokes the dodgy evidence and requests simply that benetton not be punished
-Benetton escapes punishment to general outrage of media and f1 community
-Mosely "explains" the judgement and generally amazes and infuriates with the total lack of sense in his arguments
Edited by MM2200 on Thursday 11th September 13:04
Edited by MM2200 on Thursday 11th September 13:16
Read this the other week - whilst Tom Rubython has been on the wrong side of a few judgments in the past there's a fair amount in that story that would be difficult to deny, although I'll defer to anyone that has read the biography of George Carman QC (aside to say that it would be rather daft to contradict something that has been published)
In summary, Benetton are said to had clearly broken the rules with the fuel filler incident at Hockenheim in 1994. However Max and Bernie wanted Michael Schumacher to win the World Championship so are alledged to have 'eased' the process by putting up a prosecution that could be described as 'very basic'.
In summary, Benetton are said to had clearly broken the rules with the fuel filler incident at Hockenheim in 1994. However Max and Bernie wanted Michael Schumacher to win the World Championship so are alledged to have 'eased' the process by putting up a prosecution that could be described as 'very basic'.
kevin ritson said:
Read this the other week - whilst Tom Rubython has been on the wrong side of a few judgments in the past there's a fair amount in that story that would be difficult to deny, although I'll defer to anyone that has read the biography of George Carman QC (aside to say that it would be rather daft to contradict something that has been published)
In summary, Benetton are said to had clearly broken the rules with the fuel filler incident at Hockenheim in 1994. However Max and Bernie wanted Michael Schumacher to win the World Championship so are alledged to have 'eased' the process by putting up a prosecution that could be described as 'very basic'.
Tom Rubython. i've got an biography about Senna which he wrote. Thought I recognised the name.In summary, Benetton are said to had clearly broken the rules with the fuel filler incident at Hockenheim in 1994. However Max and Bernie wanted Michael Schumacher to win the World Championship so are alledged to have 'eased' the process by putting up a prosecution that could be described as 'very basic'.
Edited by Cara Van Man on Thursday 11th September 09:17
kevin ritson said:
So have I. Just haven't read it yet because it's a very weighty tome - although it's now a fair while since I read the Hilton and Williams books on him so it may be time to make inroads.
Its good. Took me ages, but worth it. Compelling and sad at the same time.Edited by kevin ritson on Thursday 11th September 08:59
Max said as a defence:
(they)...'didn't have an advantage because what they were doing was using the equipment and the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage'
maybe mclaren should use this with lewis. He didnt gain an advantage because he used a prt of the track. the other teams (apparently) didnt use that piece of track, so had the disadvantage.
(they)...'didn't have an advantage because what they were doing was using the equipment and the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage'
maybe mclaren should use this with lewis. He didnt gain an advantage because he used a prt of the track. the other teams (apparently) didnt use that piece of track, so had the disadvantage.
The problem with Rubython is that he has been sued often and has been unable to substantiate his claims aany times.
However, this one is based on circumstances which were probably the most dangerous at a GP for, well I can't think of any that were worse.
The people at risk included were, of course, Verstappen, the pit crew, the others in the pit, those in adjacent pits, the fire crews whose job it would have been to attend any large fire and, of course, the executive lodges above the pits where the important people, at least to themselves, sat and occasionally glanced out of the window. And the reason was that Benetton had rigged the fuel rig to pump fuel faster, thereby giving them – and their drivers of course – an unfair advantage. Many would call this cheating.
It quite clearly, and demonstrably, put many people’s lives at risk for just a few seconds advantage in the race. The callousness of the move was stunning.
I was unaware at the time of the Ecc's and Mosley's involvement (conspiracy, is that the word I’m looking for?) so was confused by the outcome. I remember thinking that, if indeed it was a junior chap who removed it, why didn’t the rest of the pit crew wonder why the fuel was coming out so fast. Naive or what?
The involvement of Carman QC should have been a pointer. Whilst his name is normally proceeded by adjectives and phrases such as: the great, well respected and eminent, my experience with honest lawyers and judges in the 70s and 80s is that he was considered a rogue. An extremely clever rogue, but a rogue none the less. The legal profession looks after its own so such criticism of one who was so successful would not be made public but I know of one judge (later to reach a very high position) whom I was doing an armed guard on that he would not remain at some soiree for very long as Carman would be there. He had to attend but was not obliged to remain. Two other great judges left as well, one before ‘my’ one and the other with him.
That was very early on in Carman’s career but he’d made his mark even then.
When I was in the job you always knew how good your evidence was by the QC retained. The more expensive the QC the less evidence would be challenged. Carman was about as pricy as they came.
It was a very distasteful episode in F1. Even the basics were ignored. The team had gained a distinct advantage over the others in the pitlane. Even if, as later suggested, they were acting in the belief that it was all within the rules, the fact remains that it wasn’t. By natural justice the team should have lost all points gained during the season up until and including the German GP, and that includes the drivers as well.
Moveable floor anyone?
When we get decisions like the one at Spa any suspicions of a conspiracy can’t help but remain due to the frequency of decisions such as the German GP fire.
What struck me about Carman is that by general consensus he was extremely intelligent, quick witted and quite charming. He could, as my judge said, have done anything he wanted but he chose to make a lot of money. What he didn’t do, according to reports, was make himself happy. He ended up as an entertainer. The expose in his biography is underhand as well. If he wanted absolution for what he had done it was no good leaving the revelations until after his death.
You can tell a lot about people by whom they associate with. Ecclestone, Mosley and Carman: would you trust anything any of them said?
However, this one is based on circumstances which were probably the most dangerous at a GP for, well I can't think of any that were worse.
The people at risk included were, of course, Verstappen, the pit crew, the others in the pit, those in adjacent pits, the fire crews whose job it would have been to attend any large fire and, of course, the executive lodges above the pits where the important people, at least to themselves, sat and occasionally glanced out of the window. And the reason was that Benetton had rigged the fuel rig to pump fuel faster, thereby giving them – and their drivers of course – an unfair advantage. Many would call this cheating.
It quite clearly, and demonstrably, put many people’s lives at risk for just a few seconds advantage in the race. The callousness of the move was stunning.
I was unaware at the time of the Ecc's and Mosley's involvement (conspiracy, is that the word I’m looking for?) so was confused by the outcome. I remember thinking that, if indeed it was a junior chap who removed it, why didn’t the rest of the pit crew wonder why the fuel was coming out so fast. Naive or what?
The involvement of Carman QC should have been a pointer. Whilst his name is normally proceeded by adjectives and phrases such as: the great, well respected and eminent, my experience with honest lawyers and judges in the 70s and 80s is that he was considered a rogue. An extremely clever rogue, but a rogue none the less. The legal profession looks after its own so such criticism of one who was so successful would not be made public but I know of one judge (later to reach a very high position) whom I was doing an armed guard on that he would not remain at some soiree for very long as Carman would be there. He had to attend but was not obliged to remain. Two other great judges left as well, one before ‘my’ one and the other with him.
That was very early on in Carman’s career but he’d made his mark even then.
When I was in the job you always knew how good your evidence was by the QC retained. The more expensive the QC the less evidence would be challenged. Carman was about as pricy as they came.
It was a very distasteful episode in F1. Even the basics were ignored. The team had gained a distinct advantage over the others in the pitlane. Even if, as later suggested, they were acting in the belief that it was all within the rules, the fact remains that it wasn’t. By natural justice the team should have lost all points gained during the season up until and including the German GP, and that includes the drivers as well.
Moveable floor anyone?
When we get decisions like the one at Spa any suspicions of a conspiracy can’t help but remain due to the frequency of decisions such as the German GP fire.
What struck me about Carman is that by general consensus he was extremely intelligent, quick witted and quite charming. He could, as my judge said, have done anything he wanted but he chose to make a lot of money. What he didn’t do, according to reports, was make himself happy. He ended up as an entertainer. The expose in his biography is underhand as well. If he wanted absolution for what he had done it was no good leaving the revelations until after his death.
You can tell a lot about people by whom they associate with. Ecclestone, Mosley and Carman: would you trust anything any of them said?
williamp said:
Max said as a defence:
(they)...'didn't have an advantage because what they were doing was using the equipment and the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage'
maybe mclaren should use this with lewis. He didnt gain an advantage because he used a prt of the track. the other teams (apparently) didnt use that piece of track, so had the disadvantage.
Excellent point! Especially since Benetton defense relied upon permission from Charlie Whiting, which McLaren got twice at Spa (they)...'didn't have an advantage because what they were doing was using the equipment and the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage'
maybe mclaren should use this with lewis. He didnt gain an advantage because he used a prt of the track. the other teams (apparently) didnt use that piece of track, so had the disadvantage.
It shows that no matter how big and blatant the scandal, it wont stop the FIA from fixing the championship even 14 years later.
That's a really enlightening article, thanks for posting.
Certainly sheds an interesting light not only on F1 and it's characters over the past decade, but on the workings of the legal professional.
Interesting to see another source covering the bad smell around Renault and launch control.
Certainly sheds an interesting light not only on F1 and it's characters over the past decade, but on the workings of the legal professional.
Interesting to see another source covering the bad smell around Renault and launch control.
oobster said:
Yep, very interesting.
I do however note the copyright statement on the bottom of the article - shirley if it's subject to copyright it shouldnt be printed here in it's entirety?
It had already been put online, I found it first here: http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?3,41044I do however note the copyright statement on the bottom of the article - shirley if it's subject to copyright it shouldnt be printed here in it's entirety?
MM2200 said:
oobster said:
Yep, very interesting.
I do however note the copyright statement on the bottom of the article - shirley if it's subject to copyright it shouldnt be printed here in it's entirety?
It had already been put online, I found it first here: http://www.grandprixgames.org/read.php?3,41044I do however note the copyright statement on the bottom of the article - shirley if it's subject to copyright it shouldnt be printed here in it's entirety?
Just post the link.
CivicMan said:
George Carman dead, so I won't slur him.
Please do. The allegations of wifebeating, defrauding the legal system (by overcharging and making up work), failing to disclose evidence are both extensive and damning, and of course perfectly legal now he's dead. As Derek indicates, he was a very dangerous person, and there are many who'd happily attend a disco on his grave. His involvement in this was pretty inevitable.Have I gone too far?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff