FiA and voting. Grease not limited to the pits
Discussion
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
An interesting article from Mike Lawrence on Pitpass.
He has been a fairly stanch supporter of Mosley in the past and I've disagreed with his point of view that as long as Mosley only buys prostitutes to beat in the privacy of a Chelsea dungeon, then it doesn't matter.
However, there are some fascinating insight into other methods used in the FiA and F1. Well worth a read. There's a lovely bit of 'confused' understatement about the Turkish methods.
One quote: "I think that the FIA has been in dereliction of its duty, I have no idea whether Ari Vatanen can do any better, but he cannot do any worse." Lawrence doesn't venture a guess as to whether Todt could do any worse.
An interesting article from Mike Lawrence on Pitpass.
He has been a fairly stanch supporter of Mosley in the past and I've disagreed with his point of view that as long as Mosley only buys prostitutes to beat in the privacy of a Chelsea dungeon, then it doesn't matter.
However, there are some fascinating insight into other methods used in the FiA and F1. Well worth a read. There's a lovely bit of 'confused' understatement about the Turkish methods.
One quote: "I think that the FIA has been in dereliction of its duty, I have no idea whether Ari Vatanen can do any better, but he cannot do any worse." Lawrence doesn't venture a guess as to whether Todt could do any worse.
Very interesting read.
As for what consenting adults do in private it is up to them,but when it becomes public they can't complain if people judge them and they just have to live with the consequences. It's yet another example of Spanky's warped judgement that he really doesn't understand that.
As for Todt,although the specific attributes are different I can't rid myself of the feeling they are both suffer from the same Napoleonic malaise.
A plague on both,preferably a nasty one.
As for what consenting adults do in private it is up to them,but when it becomes public they can't complain if people judge them and they just have to live with the consequences. It's yet another example of Spanky's warped judgement that he really doesn't understand that.
As for Todt,although the specific attributes are different I can't rid myself of the feeling they are both suffer from the same Napoleonic malaise.
A plague on both,preferably a nasty one.
zac510 said:
Well there was that fuss over the Florida ballot punch cards and electric voting systems.
As opposed to, say, this little British beauty in 2004?:BBC said:
A judge investigating vote-rigging in Birmingham's local elections has ruled there was widespread fraud and has ordered new elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4...I studied the voting system in the UK and, despite the fact that in many ways it is as good as or superior to most others out there, there is little doubt that it is far from perfect and democratic. In fact until 1928 it was not a democracy.
Whilst the fact that a King/Queen is head of state is of little account with the one we've got now, the upper chamber negates any sense of fairness. Despite what suffragettes suggested, the only thing holding back female suffrage was the Lords. Had it been left to the Commons, male and females would have had identical voting rights (although by no means universal) in the 19th century.
So what I’m saying is that there is no system that is democratic, you just get different ways of assessing the public’s views. There are other systems, a number in Europe, that might justifiably be said are fairer and more democratic that the one we have. What you can say about the present voting system in the UK is that it is fairly transparent. Which brings us to the system used by the FiA for presidential votes.
The American AA gets one vote, the Botswana AA gets one vote. I’ve not seen the detailed membership lists of both associations but my guess is that one is considerably bigger than the other. There is some justification for this in the sense that if the associations had ‘block’ votes like they did in the TUC, one group would eventually over-ride the interests of the others until that group broke up and another formed.
But democratic? Hardly. Democracy means that the opinion of the ‘population’, i.e. that which is governed, is taken into account. I wonder if the AAA has asked everyone.
The FiA made itself important by taking on various roles, getting bigger as time went on rather like a black hole. And like a black hole, things fell into it never to be seen again, like, unless things change, the WRC.
The FiA is a quango but one with no checks. It has power and authority but no accountability. Mosley changed the voting rules to favour the incumbent or his chosen successor. Hardly democratic.
My experiences as a police officer have proved to me that the saying: all power corrupts. There must be checks or else it is a free-for-all.
The corrupt practice that Lawrence suggests he’s heard rumours of: the good negotiator/bad negotiator is a fine example of how things end up.
Whilst the fact that a King/Queen is head of state is of little account with the one we've got now, the upper chamber negates any sense of fairness. Despite what suffragettes suggested, the only thing holding back female suffrage was the Lords. Had it been left to the Commons, male and females would have had identical voting rights (although by no means universal) in the 19th century.
So what I’m saying is that there is no system that is democratic, you just get different ways of assessing the public’s views. There are other systems, a number in Europe, that might justifiably be said are fairer and more democratic that the one we have. What you can say about the present voting system in the UK is that it is fairly transparent. Which brings us to the system used by the FiA for presidential votes.
The American AA gets one vote, the Botswana AA gets one vote. I’ve not seen the detailed membership lists of both associations but my guess is that one is considerably bigger than the other. There is some justification for this in the sense that if the associations had ‘block’ votes like they did in the TUC, one group would eventually over-ride the interests of the others until that group broke up and another formed.
But democratic? Hardly. Democracy means that the opinion of the ‘population’, i.e. that which is governed, is taken into account. I wonder if the AAA has asked everyone.
The FiA made itself important by taking on various roles, getting bigger as time went on rather like a black hole. And like a black hole, things fell into it never to be seen again, like, unless things change, the WRC.
The FiA is a quango but one with no checks. It has power and authority but no accountability. Mosley changed the voting rules to favour the incumbent or his chosen successor. Hardly democratic.
My experiences as a police officer have proved to me that the saying: all power corrupts. There must be checks or else it is a free-for-all.
The corrupt practice that Lawrence suggests he’s heard rumours of: the good negotiator/bad negotiator is a fine example of how things end up.
It's interesting that he states in the article: -
"I cannot have be the only journalist who has been offered incentives".
It has been a long held suspicion of mine that journalists are always carefuol what they report on F1 for fear of losing their press pass for the races. This suggests it goes even further. I wonder who offered and what was offered!
"I cannot have be the only journalist who has been offered incentives".
It has been a long held suspicion of mine that journalists are always carefuol what they report on F1 for fear of losing their press pass for the races. This suggests it goes even further. I wonder who offered and what was offered!
Derek Smith said:
...good stuff...
However...Derek Smith said:
The FiA is a quango but one with no checks.
Is it funded by the French government then? If not I think you need to look up the term...I always thought the FIA it was an independent organisation with independent funding through the local Motorsport Associations and the Forumulas it runs directly. Assuming that is the case, it is 100% up to them (and the respective local bodies) how they elect their own president. If people dont like it, its tough titties.
Chrisgr31 said:
It's interesting that he states in the article: -
"I cannot have be the only journalist who has been offered incentives".
It has been a long held suspicion of mine that journalists are always carefuol what they report on F1 for fear of losing their press pass for the races. This suggests it goes even further. I wonder who offered and what was offered!
I can't see too many carrots being offered to journos, apart from free food and drink - and if you don't offer that, they don't come - so my suspicion would be that the incentive would be more on the negative side."I cannot have be the only journalist who has been offered incentives".
It has been a long held suspicion of mine that journalists are always carefuol what they report on F1 for fear of losing their press pass for the races. This suggests it goes even further. I wonder who offered and what was offered!
There's the pitpass of course, plus the more subtle access to the great and the good. I suppose a bit of carrot might be the confidential aside, but then that would not be for the benefit of the journo but for the utterer.
There is little doubt that Mosley got outrageous press support through many of his, what to many were, inexcusable 'lapses'. The competitors to, for instance, Fox, could be forgiven for taking sides against the NotW (although the moral highground was surprisingly cramped with all the tabloid editors up there - it's a wonder they knew where it was. The Guardian penned an hilarious report on Whitmarsh's letter, in which all the findings of the FiA/Mosley panel were refuted, calling it a grovelling apology. The thought that went through my mind was: So what do they get for that?
I somehow can't see Todt generating that degree of obsequiousness. Who'd prostrate themselves in front of him? I would assume he'd be in for a rougher ride.
Thurbs said:
Derek Smith said:
...good stuff...
However...Derek Smith said:
The FiA is a quango but one with no checks.
Is it funded by the French government then? If not I think you need to look up the term...I always thought the FIA it was an independent organisation with independent funding through the local Motorsport Associations and the Forumulas it runs directly. Assuming that is the case, it is 100% up to them (and the respective local bodies) how they elect their own president. If people dont like it, its tough titties.
You suggest that those who do not like the way the FiA is run can opt out, but they can't. Even the ACO is 'governed' by the FiA in that it sets the ground rules. I accept that Mosley never had the bottle to take the ACO on as it would have created a crisis in motor sport, which, I would assume, the FiA would have lost if it was a head to head. However, there are other ways in which the FiA could have influenced the ACO's series.
Also, of course, the cars you buy are built to standards which are checked by the FiA. Rumour has it that BMW were quite struck by the authority that the FiA had without any form of independent check.
All motor racing is, according to the FiA, governed by them. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the FiA, you can't go motor racing. If you want to watch motor racing but don't want the FiA to run it, then again tough. Want to vote for its president, then again tough. Perhaps join a club that is affiliated to the FiA and then, perhaps, you can vote then? Er, no. I belong to two such organisations, neither of which has a vote.
There was an interesting bit I read (somewhere recently) where a journo was engaged in a conversation with a cabbie and Mosley's name came up. The cabbie was not particularly keen on F1. The journo asked him how many other presidents of a sports governing body he could name, and we all know the answer.
That said, I would assume that the CVC and FOTA will jointly push the FiA into the background by way of the concord agreement. If Todt (or whoever) can't alter it, then they are stuffed.
There appears to be a delay in the signing of the CA by the FiA. This to me is good news as the most likely scenario is that they don't like it. However, refusal to sign at this stage, with a president on the way out and his replacement unknown at this time - perfect timing - would be extremely dangerous for the FiA.
veryoldfart said:
They were call girls, not prozzies.....
A definition of a prostitute is a woman who sells her body for sexual favours. One definition of call-girl I heard was a prostitute who is 'booked' by phone. So a call-girl is a prostitute. Further, the way I understood this was that one woman was phoned who then spoke with the others. No mention of phone calls in reports of the trial that I read. Under any definition, the women Mosley beat in his Chelsea cellar are prostitutes. The term call-girl is a modifier by method of contact, nothing more.
Derek Smith said:
You suggest that those who do not like the way the FiA is run can opt out, but they can't. Even the ACO is 'governed' by the FiA in that it sets the ground rules. I accept that Mosley never had the bottle to take the ACO on as it would have created a crisis in motor sport, which, I would assume, the FiA would have lost if it was a head to head. However, there are other ways in which the FiA could have influenced the ACO's series.
All motor racing is, according to the FiA, governed by them. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the FiA, you can't go motor racing. If you want to watch motor racing but don't want the FiA to run it, then again tough. Want to vote for its president, then again tough. Perhaps join a club that is affiliated to the FiA and then, perhaps, you can vote then? Er, no. I belong to two such organisations, neither of which has a vote.
Your beef seems to be centred on the fact that the FIA has a (ROTW) monopoly and is not accountable to "Joe the pluming motor racing fan", to coin an American phrase. All motor racing is, according to the FiA, governed by them. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the FiA, you can't go motor racing. If you want to watch motor racing but don't want the FiA to run it, then again tough. Want to vote for its president, then again tough. Perhaps join a club that is affiliated to the FiA and then, perhaps, you can vote then? Er, no. I belong to two such organisations, neither of which has a vote.
Any governing body is it needs to be sanctioned by the government, the industry and the participants involved. There is nothing stopping you setting up your own world motorsport governing body. The trouble is, you would get laughed off the stage for having no credibility.
The Yanks don’t like the FIA, so they did their own thing, regulate themselves and regularly have their own toys being ejected out of prams moments.
Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact you have no choice and no vote. I dare say if you started a crusade to change the governance of the FIA, put yourself up for election or got a sympathiser elected, something might get done. Other than that, it’s back to my earlier post I’m afraid
. Thurbs said:
Derek Smith said:
You suggest that those who do not like the way the FiA is run can opt out, but they can't. Even the ACO is 'governed' by the FiA in that it sets the ground rules. I accept that Mosley never had the bottle to take the ACO on as it would have created a crisis in motor sport, which, I would assume, the FiA would have lost if it was a head to head. However, there are other ways in which the FiA could have influenced the ACO's series.
All motor racing is, according to the FiA, governed by them. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the FiA, you can't go motor racing. If you want to watch motor racing but don't want the FiA to run it, then again tough. Want to vote for its president, then again tough. Perhaps join a club that is affiliated to the FiA and then, perhaps, you can vote then? Er, no. I belong to two such organisations, neither of which has a vote.
Your beef seems to be centred on the fact that the FIA has a (ROTW) monopoly and is not accountable to "Joe the pluming motor racing fan", to coin an American phrase. All motor racing is, according to the FiA, governed by them. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the FiA, you can't go motor racing. If you want to watch motor racing but don't want the FiA to run it, then again tough. Want to vote for its president, then again tough. Perhaps join a club that is affiliated to the FiA and then, perhaps, you can vote then? Er, no. I belong to two such organisations, neither of which has a vote.
Any governing body is it needs to be sanctioned by the government, the industry and the participants involved. There is nothing stopping you setting up your own world motorsport governing body. The trouble is, you would get laughed off the stage for having no credibility.
The Yanks don’t like the FIA, so they did their own thing, regulate themselves and regularly have their own toys being ejected out of prams moments.
Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact you have no choice and no vote. I dare say if you started a crusade to change the governance of the FIA, put yourself up for election or got a sympathiser elected, something might get done. Other than that, it’s back to my earlier post I’m afraid
. Apart from the fact that the Americans do run their series under the auspicies of the FiA, you put my point precisely.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff