Alan Donnelly - Chief F1 Steward

[CivicMan]

I know we've been there before, but this guy STINKS.

Check out this, where he sued Business F1 magazine for defamation. Typical Labour luvvie.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/Donnelly-Ful...

[flemke]

CivicMan said:

I know we've been there before, but this guy STINKS.

Check out this, where he sued Business F1 magazine for defamation. Typical Labour luvvie.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/Donnelly-Ful...

I cannot be bothered to read the whole thing, but it appears that the presiding judge, Eady, is the same dude who found in favour of Mosley in the S&M/Nazi trial.

[ariel]

I see that he honed his skills under that peerless politician Blair

[woof]

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

I know we've been there before, but this guy STINKS.

Check out this, where he sued Business F1 magazine for defamation. Typical Labour luvvie.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/recentwork/Donnelly-Ful...

I cannot be bothered to read the whole thing, but it appears that the presiding judge, Eady, is the same dude who found in favour of Mosley in the S&M/Nazi trial.

Correct - the same judge. But he is a judge that specialises in press and libel cases.
From what i understood, Judge Eady isn't a bad sort

[CivicMan]

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

[flemke]

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

[Stu R]

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

nope, shocking and true. Though I must add somewhat unsurprising.

[flemke]

TVR Moneypit said:

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

Can it get any more blatant?

Until yesterday afternoon, I thought not.

These people never fail to exceed expectations.

[Henry-F]

In the cold light of the morning after I am still astounded. I truely hope there are people in the top level of our sport who are equally appauled and who are in a position to do something about it.

Our whole sport is on trial here. If judgement goes against lewis I can see f1 breaking away from the fia and other sections of motorsport following their lead, possibly affiliating to the newly created f1 governing body. It will play straight into bernie's hand and make home even wealthier and power hungry.

Henry

[VladD]

Didn't the German motorsport association withdraw from the FIA after Moseley-gate. Perhaps the British MSA should do the same now.

[flemke]

VladD said:

Didn't the German motorsport association withdraw from the FIA after Moseley-gate. Perhaps the British MSA should do the same now.

Not likely.
The MSA were pathetically silent during the whole Mosley saga, until he won the FIA vote thanks to that guy from UAE delivering him 41 votes to swing the verdict. Then the MSA couldn't publicly express their support for Max quickly enough.
Pathetic. The spine of a jellyfish.

[Fivepercent]

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

Your McLaren fanboyism knows no bounds.
Bernie was at Brabham before his current job.
Max was at March before his current job.
So what.

This thread is just a vitriolic and unjustified personal attack and should be locked or deleted.
Behaviour like this is clearly out of order.

[flemke]

Fivepercent said:

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

Your McLaren fanboyism knows no bounds.
Bernie was at Brabham before his current job.
Max was at March before his current job.
So what.

This thread is just a vitriolic and unjustified personal attack and should be locked or deleted.
Behaviour like this is clearly out of order.

Do you have a point?
We know where Bernie was; we know where Max was. That history, which ended nearly twenty years ago, is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the guy whom Mosley personally appointed to the new position - which he personally created - of stewards' overseer is someone who:
- has no known history whatsoever in motor sport, but who
- has a substantial private business with both the FIA and Ferrari as his clients.

Now, if the guy were eminently qualified (like his half-predecessor, Tony Scott-Andrews), then perhaps one would look past the business proximity.
In this case, however, we have someone who is eminently unqualified, yet we're expected at the same time to look past the business proximity.

I don't know whether the guy makes fair or unfair decisions (although I have a strong opinion, after 13 races), but I do know that there is a bright, shining, utterly unavoidable appearance of a conflict of interest.
Of all the people in this world, why pick as stewards' overseer a career bureaucrat, professional politician and lobbyist who has no background in or expert knowledge of the sport?

Why?

[WJM]

This thread is just a vitriolic and unjustified personal attack and should be locked or deleted.
Behaviour like this is clearly out of order.
[/quote]

If you think Max is not bent {in a hundred different ways} you are clearly an idiot. Donnelly is a completely worthless individual who should never have got into a position of authority in F1. What next Alister Campbell as the voice of truth.

[Digga]

FWIW in the extensive and exhaustive fax I sent the FIAt this morning, amongst other things I suggested that - like any other large organisation that (ultimately) owes its existence to the payingpublic, they should, as matter of urgent priority:
1. Start paying attention to the weight of opinion - both on websites like this and also in the motoring press. (Motor Sport magazine has been less then comlimentary about the way F1 is being run for some time now.) There are some serious, long running issues that many fans have with F1 and the way it is being run. In the long term even F1 ignores is customers at its peril.
2. Take immediate steps to alter technical regs to promote both overtaking and, to simplify and reduce budgetary requirements as far as possible. It can be done.
3. Undertake a programme of corporate governance review which would ensure impartiality of stewards and key staff - they must have no links to teams, sponsors, circuits or any other interested parties - part of which, if done correctly, would inevetably lead to the dismissal of Max Moselely.

I would add that no major corporation would suffer Spanky's presence on their board, irrespective of the breach of privacy by the press being found in his favour, and he makes a mockery of the FIA, and motorsport in general by remaining on the scene. Quite what point a spokesperson serves when he is odious, repugnant and totally out of step with moral andpublic opinion is beyond not just myself, but many others far better qualified to comment. IF the FIAt car to listen...

[Derek Smith]

flemke said:

Fivepercent said:

flemke said:

CivicMan said:

Ths is a contact form for him - as you can see he is handles the PR for the FIA. So how can he be impartial under FIA presure to stiff McLaren?

http://www.sovereignstrategy.com/contact.asp

My friend, until they changed their website at the time that Donnelly was given his stewards' oversight position by Mosley, his firm handled the PR for Ferrari SpA as well.
This is not a joke.

Your McLaren fanboyism knows no bounds.
Bernie was at Brabham before his current job.
Max was at March before his current job.
So what.

This thread is just a vitriolic and unjustified personal attack and should be locked or deleted.
Behaviour like this is clearly out of order.

Do you have a point?
We know where Bernie was; we know where Max was. That history, which ended nearly twenty years ago, is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the guy whom Mosley personally appointed to the new position - which he personally created - of stewards' overseer is someone who:
- has no known history whatsoever in motor sport, but who
- has a substantial private business with both the FIA and Ferrari as his clients.

Now, if the guy were eminently qualified (like his half-predecessor, Tony Scott-Andrews), then perhaps one would look past the business proximity.
In this case, however, we have someone who is eminently unqualified, yet we're expected at the same time to look past the business proximity.

I don't know whether the guy makes fair or unfair decisions (although I have a strong opinion, after 13 races), but I do know that there is a bright, shining, utterly unavoidable appearance of a conflict of interest.
Of all the people in this world, why pick as stewards' overseer a career bureaucrat, professional politician and lobbyist who has no background in or expert knowledge of the sport?

Why?

The essence of such a position is that a person sitting in judgement on others should:
a/ be impartial and, just as importantly,
b/ should appear to be impartial.

If a person fails on either part they are unsuited to the role. Allen Donely - who hates his name being spelt incorrectly - was in the pay of Ferrari in the recent past and, for all we know, still is in the pay of Ferrari. That is a massive conflict of interest and does, I would suggest, give rise to suspicions in the mind of those on the Clapham omnibus of a lack of impartiality.

If Doneely had had experience in F1 then some degree of involvement with one team or another would be virtually impossible to eradicate. However, some period away from such influence where they served in some official position with the sport would, perhaps, be enough to allay suspicions. But when it comes to just some bloke who is dragged in off the street, being in the pay of Ferrari at the time of the appointment is, I feel, enough to bar him.

Doneley has been picked for reasons other than being eminently suited to the role.

Further, if someone such has Scott-Andrews is ousted from a post they have performed without overt criticism from the boss (remember those days?) and replaced by someone who is compromised in some way, the failings of the predecessor, or the reasons for his exclusion, should be given.

The whole thing stinks. That does not mean it is corrupt of course, but just smells that way.

The only positive aspect of this whole sorry weekend is that at least no one is blaming Ferrari. We all know at whom we should point the finger.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

Further, if someone such has Scott-Andrews is ousted from a post they have performed without overt criticism from the boss (remember those days?) and replaced by someone who is compromised in some way, the failings of the predecessor, or the reasons for his exclusion, should be given.

Scott Andrews was brought in as the honest expert who would sort out the local yokels and finally, after 50+ years, bring some professionalism and integrity to the stewards' role. He began the job in 2006.
There were a number of odd stewards' decisions in '06 and '07, which caused one to wonder whether he was that objective after all. There was no way of being sure about that, however, because stewards' decisions are majority rule, so Scott Andrews could have opposed various dubious proposed rulings that nevertheless were effected.
My confidence in Scott Andrews was especially undermined after the Hungary travesty, which saw Alonso demoted five grid spots for interacting with his own teammate, and then the entire team being precluded from scoring any WCC points (which decision in its own right could have amounted to a roughly $10M fine).
There was so much absurdity in that Hungarian weekend, however, that at the time I overlooked a fact that I only came upon a few days ago. To wit, at the Hungarian GP, it seems that the stewards did not propose to levy any sanction against either Alonso or the McLaren team. According to Autosport, what happened was that, later on the Saturday, the FIA hierarchy decided on its own to impose their insane, ad hoc penalities, and they contacted the stewards to instruct them of what they must do.
This fact, combined with the other fact to which Derek alludes, that Scott Andrews inexplicably left his job after only two years, which job was then eliminated in a Mosley restructuring, raises yet more questions about the integrity of the F1 tragi-comedy.