Max Mosley opens a can of worms. [Archive] - Page 3

Tazio

5th June 2008, 17:10

GOT BOREDOM?

This is yesterday’s news! Bernie already lost to Max. The Puritans have lost. All persons with so called "higher moral fiber" lost! The patriotic British racing fan lost. All was lost when Max hit McLaren up for $100,000,000.oo US.
In the words of Johnny Rambo, You "got killed in Viet Nam and didn't even know it!” (Metaphorically speaking of course) For every one of you vicariously living units, there are many, many more proactive utilitarian types that don't give a rats@ss about what happens to max in his spare time, or at work. This whole shimozzel was instigated by the Anglo-Mafia as payback for the Frog-skins McLaren got taken away from them (and rightfully so)by the FIA in the Stepney-gate affair
But wining this year is a real possibility. If the A-M doesn’t back off, the FIA will find another way for McLaren to lose all!
Kings!

trumperZ06

5th June 2008, 19:02

Yep, I'm an open minded person.

:dozey: Next statement will be...

Ioan finds Religion !!!

ioan

5th June 2008, 19:22

:dozey: Next statement will be...

Ioan finds Religion !!!

What's that religion?! :rolleyes:

ioan

5th June 2008, 19:26

But surely such things as his confrontations with Silverstone and the BRDC indicate that he's not afraid of the odd contretemps, even some fairly vicious ones?

In those cases he's the one dictating cause he can any time say they got their GP moved to an eastern country.
But he can't win over Max, remember Indy 2005, Bernie wanted the race with a suplimentary chicane, Max said No, and No it stayed.

Valve Bounce

5th June 2008, 22:43

I'm a little unclear here. Is there some behavioural norm to which we should all subscribe, then? Should anyone who uses a prostitute resign from their job because it must cloud their judgment?

Hell yeah!! if he's got five of them whacking his bum!! :eek: How would this person be able to sit down at his desk to do his job? :p : :D :rotflmao:

Valve Bounce

5th June 2008, 22:44

Yep, I'm an open minded person.

I can see that - but the windscreen wiper blades need to be changed. :p :

ArrowsFA1

6th June 2008, 07:50

In those cases he's the one dictating cause he can any time say they got their GP moved to an eastern country.
But he can't win over Max, remember Indy 2005, Bernie wanted the race with a suplimentary chicane, Max said No, and No it stayed.
Doesn't that suggest that, as far as F1 is concerned, the sport is being pulled in different directions? That can't be healthy in the long term; something that BMW and Honda have recognised:

BMW Sauber and Honda Racing believe the FIA must do something to address fears of a split within the governing body in the wake of the vote of confidence in Max Mosley earlier this week.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68001

ioan

6th June 2008, 07:57

Doesn't that suggest that, as far as F1 is concerned, the sport is being pulled in different directions?

Yeah it suggests that Bernie would do anything to ensure his money flow while Max will do what it takes to keep the correctness.
It clear that they pull in different direction. However in my view Bernie is the one pulling in the wrong direction.
Look at all the changes to the qualifying system made to ensure there is a show for the viewers in the detriment of the sport (unless you believe the qualifying format we have is better than what we used to have). He was the one pushing for this.

AndyRAC

6th June 2008, 08:11

Excuse my naivity, but Bernie should just promote the races the FIA award. The rules and regs should also be left to the FIA to decide - really it shouldn't involve Bernie. Obviously we know that doesn't happen.

Garry Walker

6th June 2008, 08:49

Very good post. I thought I`d never hear that from you :D

I think Mosley's handling of the situation has been pretty awful. His comments towards the German car manufacturers were unacceptable
Yeah, that was not a very intelligent comment. I have always thought of Max has an extremely intelligent and cunning guy, but he let his emotions get the better of him there. That said, I admire his guts to say what he thinks.

The difference between having a wife or a girlfriend is only a piece of paper.
Going further, most of the married people cheat on their beloved wife/husband.
Where do you take this idiotic "most married people cheat" comment? Are you basing it on yourself? Because if you are, then remember, that not everyone has so little ethics.
Piece of paper or not, once one is in a committed relationship, not cheating is imperative.
I am shocked that someone speaks of cheating in so light manner.

Just because someone cheats on his wife because that gives him the kick he needs doesn't mean that he isn't a trustworthy person in th eother aspects of his life.
No, but such behaviour, in my eyes, makes that person a complete ****. I have zero respect for people who cheat on their spouses. Zero. That includes max.

I have never engaged in such behaviour and to my knowledge, never has anyone I have been dating with, but I still have very very strong views on this.

And as much as Mosley enjoys confrontation and argument, Bernie hates this and is afraid of a confrontation with Max now that he stays.

LOL. Bernie is many things, but a coward? Please. This guy is a foot shorter than me, many decades older and probably 100 pounds lighter, but I would think twice about confronting him. And I love confrontations, much like Mosley does.

He did his best attempting to get rid of Max and of the confrontation they will have at the negotiations.
he knew it was his chance and tried to take advantage.

Most intelligent people don't like confrontations because they can lose and that wouldn't be OK, so they do their best to take them out of their way.
I think Bernie and Max are on much friendlier terms than it might appear to us.
Richard Williams who wrote an interesting article on that.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/05/mosley_and_ecclestone_remain_p.html

Remember, Bernie says many things, changing his story every minute, just to get his wish.

ArrowsFA1

6th June 2008, 08:51

Yeah it suggests that Bernie would do anything to ensure his money flow while Max will do what it takes to keep the correctness.
But look at the changes to the points system, made (many said) to stop Ferrari's dominance. It was Max who pushed that through.

If people are pulling in different directions, when supposedly working for the same thing (in this case F1), the end result is damaging.

ioan

6th June 2008, 10:25

Where do you take this idiotic "most married people cheat" comment? Are you basing it on yourself? Because if you are, then remember, that not everyone has so little ethics.
Piece of paper or not, once one is in a committed relationship, not cheating is imperative.
I am shocked that someone speaks of cheating in so light manner.

Take your time and search before slagging others.
You seem to live in a fairy tale where you are the king who married and lived happily ever after. :p :
Time to wake up:

Annette Lawson, a sociologist affiliated with the Institute for Research on Women and Gender at Stanford University, said various studies suggest adultery has been increasing, with 25 to 50 percent of married women and 50 to 65 percent of married men now having at least one liaison at some time in a marriage.

Link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DD143AF93AA35750C0A96F948260

So, next time do your homework before you decide to attack me using certain adjectives. :rolleyes:

ioan

6th June 2008, 10:30

But look at the changes to the points system, made (many said) to stop Ferrari's dominance. It was Max who pushed that through.

Yeah sure Max changed the rules, but why? Who was losing out because the WDC was decided in July during the 2002 season?! Bernie comes to mind again.

Mind you the qualy system was also changed by Max, because only the FIA can change it, but it was in the best interest of Bernie.

The problem is that nowadays Max is less willing to accommodate Bernie and this irritated the later. I would like to know the reasons for all this happening.

SGWilko

6th June 2008, 10:31

Take your time and search before slagging others.
You seem to live in a fairy tale where you are the king who married and lived happily ever after. :p :
Time to wake up:

Link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DD143AF93AA35750C0A96F948260

So, next time do your homework before you decide to attack me using certain adjectives. :rolleyes:

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

ioan

6th June 2008, 10:38

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

So, don't be upset, live your life at your best! ;)

SGWilko

6th June 2008, 10:42

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

So, don't be upset, live your life at your best! ;)

I'm not getting upset, I just have strong feelings on this. ;)

Garry Walker

6th June 2008, 10:45

Take your time and search before slagging others.
You seem to live in a fairy tale where you are the king who married and lived happily ever after. :p : I live in the world where ethics still count and people have a certain amount of respect for themselves and others. I know those beliefs are getting less and less important every day, but I will not descend along with that decadence.

Time to wake up:
1) I stand by what I said regarding my opinion on people who cheat on their spouses 100%. Most people I know agree with my view.

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses. Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

Link:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=950DE3DD143AF93AA35750C0A96F948260

So, next time do your homework before you decide to attack me using certain adjectives. :rolleyes:

Do not worry for me, I have done my homework, as I am about to show you.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/27/how-common-are-cheating-spouses.html

In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago upended the conventional thought of general licentiousness (generated in large part by sex study pioneer Michael Kinsey). It showed 15 to 18 percent of "ever-married people have had a sexual partner other than their spouse while married." And just 3 to 4 percent have cheated on their spouse in any given year. In 2000, another team of researchers, led by Judith Treas, a sociologist at the University of California-Irvine, concluded that 11 percent of adults have cheated on their spouse or cohabitating partner. "There isn't any evidence of an infidelity epidemic," she says.

ArrowsFA1

6th June 2008, 11:02

The problem is that nowadays Max is less willing to accommodate Bernie and this irritated the later. I would like to know the reasons for all this happening.
We can go back and forth with this indefinately, but let me just say I don't agree with your view that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1. His job is to protect and promote the commercial interests of the sport, whereas the FIA President's role is as head of the rulemaking body. That in itself can create a conflict of interests, particularly given the fact that Max 'n' Bernie's history as a "team" goes waaaaay back.

ioan

6th June 2008, 11:03

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses.

50,1% is already most of them, in case you didn't follow maths before.

Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

:laugh:
You are calling a study performed at the Stanford University idiotic just because it didn't support your POV! And you talk about ethics?! :rolleyes:

Do not worry for me, I have done my homework, as I am about to show you.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/03/27/how-common-are-cheating-spouses.html

Well, I did show you where I found that more than 50% of the people cheat on their spouse, you found one where it says it's less.
Still doesn't give you the right to call others and their opinions idiotic.
Consider the way you express yourself next time you reply to one of my posts and try to be civilized.

Valve Bounce

6th June 2008, 11:30

Yeah sure Max changed the rules, but why? Who was losing out because the WDC was decided in July during the 2002 season?! Bernie comes to mind again.

Mind you the qualy system was also changed by Max, because only the FIA can change it, but it was in the best interest of Bernie.

The problem is that nowadays Max is less willing to accommodate Bernie and this irritated the later. I would like to know the reasons for all this happening.

Yeah!! sounds like a sore point there. :eek:

ShiftingGears

6th June 2008, 11:31

2) When you say "most", it implies a far higher degree than 50% of all married people cheating on their spouses.

Most = majority= over 50%.

Even the idiotic "research" you quoted didn`t show such numbers. Before throwing around stuff that is embarrassing to read, think first act later.

Practice what you preach ;)

I get the feeling, somehow, that Max will be standing for re-election at the end of his reign. Firstly because he's power hungry and secondly, for all the talk of Max stepping down, there hasn't been any talk or suggestions about who would replace him.

Valve Bounce

6th June 2008, 11:35

We can go back and forth with this indefinately, but let me just say I don't agree with your view that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1. His job is to protect and promote the commercial interests of the sport, whereas the FIA President's role is as head of the rulemaking body. That in itself can create a conflict of interests, particularly given the fact that Max 'n' Bernie's history as a "team" goes waaaaay back.

I won't say that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1 - only the money side. If he is less greedy and spread the money around so the teams don't have to scrape to survive, we'd have a better F1.

Let's face it, Bernie is greedy to the detriment of F1. I would love to see Bernie get stuck in a lift with Max - I'd switch off the power and go on a ski holiday!!

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:02

Yeah it suggests that Bernie would do anything to ensure his money flow while Max will do what it takes to keep the correctness.
It clear that they pull in different direction. However in my view Bernie is the one pulling in the wrong direction.

Earlier in this thread, Arrows linked to a thread from last year in which you accused both Max and Bernie of both being in it for the money. Why, I must ask again, has your view of Max changed since then?

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:07

I thought I`d never hear that from you

I like to surprise!

Yeah, that was not a very intelligent comment. I have always thought of Max has an extremely intelligent and cunning guy, but he let his emotions get the better of him there. That said, I admire his guts to say what he thinks.

Yes, but as you suggest, there are limits. He's also on thin ice referring to the long-past actions of German car manufacturers given his own family past, but there's no need to go back over that.

LOL. Bernie is many things, but a coward? Please. This guy is a foot shorter than me, many decades older and probably 100 pounds lighter, but I would think twice about confronting him.

Absolutely right. He is also, possibly, a fairer negotiator than he may be given credit for - at least these days.

I think Bernie and Max are on much friendlier terms than it might appear to us.
Richard Williams who wrote an interesting article on that.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/06/05/mosley_and_ecclestone_remain_p.html

Again, I agree. The way Bernie seemed to suddenly 'turn' on Max struck me as rather odd and a little implausible. Do we believe that they are now no longer on speaking terms, or similar? That would be a natural thing to happen in such circumstances, yet I can't imagine it. Mind you, let's not forget Max's sudden attempt at a matey reconciliation with Jackie Stewart recently, so he's not immune from such impromptu 'mood swings'.

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:08

But look at the changes to the points system, made (many said) to stop Ferrari's dominance. It was Max who pushed that through.

If people are pulling in different directions, when supposedly working for the same thing (in this case F1), the end result is damaging.

Absolutely right. :up:

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:11

Sorry, this has nick all to do with F1, but your quote from the university bod only confirms one thing to me, that moral fibre is lacking in todays society.

Marriage is no longer looked on as the union between two people it once was. Divorce has become far too easy and acceptable. Respect is a diminishing phenomenon.

So my wife and I, bringing our kids up, teaching them respect, manners, ethics and morals, we are the exception to the rule? If that's the case, why chuffing bother?

In fact, I should leave my wife, care nothing for my kids and refuse to pay maintenenace, encourage my ex-wife to let my kids drink alcohol to excess, carry knives, join a gang........

I don't buy into your view of society today as being dreadful. Personally, I just don't see it, and am grateful for the way society has advanced and become more tolerant of people of different lifestyles. Yes, there are problems, but there always have been.

Anyway, the Mosley situation is a bit different because, for whatever reason, he felt the need to get something a bit different in order to enjoy himself and be satisfied. Hardly a modern phenomenon, and I don't think he's in the vanguard of some sort of moral decline.

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:14

It's not about lack of morals or ethics, it's just that the society evolves, and the moral/ethic standards change.

This doesn't mean that one can't have a happy marriage as it was before, only that there is a higher chance to hit troubles at one time or the other.

Also not all the people who cheat on their wife/husband are doing it because they want to quit them.

Agreed. It's a bit more complex than that. It's very sad, but not a lot can be done to stop it. People, famous or otherwise, have been doing what Max did for years and years.

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:17

I won't say that Bernie is at the root of everything that is wrong with F1 - only the money side. If he is less greedy and spread the money around so the teams don't have to scrape to survive, we'd have a better F1.

But F1 will never be some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone. As in life, there will be haves and have-nots. Some teams will succeed because they perform well, and others will fail because they don't.

The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money, but the fact that the basic sums are so high in the first place. A variety of people are at fault for this.

MAX_THRUST

6th June 2008, 12:18

Benies the boss of F1 so if anything is wrong with F1 then the buck must stop there, same with Max, if the FIA is failing in any way as the boss he is responsible.

As a side note, extensive research has been conducted by Relate and other marriage guidance services into the effects of human behaviour, and often men in high powered jobs are often the ones that prefer a dominatrix style of arousal.

Also Ioan changed his mind on Max because he helped Ferrari win the championship last year.

Valve Bounce should be banned because he is too funny.........

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:22

ShiftingGears

6th June 2008, 12:28

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

It all depends on the sample size and the type of people that you survey, though. And since its only a small percent of the population that are surveyed, its extremely unlikely to get percentages that all other surveys agree with.

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 12:48

It all depends on the sample size and the type of people that you survey, though. And since its only a small percent of the population that are surveyed, its extremely unlikely to get percentages that all other surveys agree with.

Of course.

ioan

6th June 2008, 12:55

That research you quoted earlier seemed highly suspect to me, though. The numbers were awfully high.

Yes they are high, but I wasn't very surprised by the numbers.
When you think that in some European countries 70% of young people marriages end only 7 years after the debut, it is no surprise that so many people cheat.

ioan

6th June 2008, 12:56

Earlier in this thread, Arrows linked to a thread from last year in which you accused both Max and Bernie of both being in it for the money. Why, I must ask again, has your view of Max changed since then?

It has something to do with him disagreeing with Bernie about certain things.

Valve Bounce

6th June 2008, 13:39

But F1 will never be some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone. As in life, there will be haves and have-nots. Some teams will succeed because they perform well, and others will fail because they don't.

The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money, but the fact that the basic sums are so high in the first place. A variety of people are at fault for this.

You seem to disregard the amount of money Bernie is stuffing in his own pocket and making the different countries pay to host the races which make him money, and not giving enough back to the teams.

There does not need to be "some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone" as you put it. I don't think anyone expects that in any sporting series. But there needs to be more money put back into the teams, and more into the bottom teams too. How can it be justified that the last team gets no money?

Well, yeah!! I have to agree with you that:"The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money,"; The problem is the bugger who is not distributing the money in an equitable manner back to the teams.

SGWilko

6th June 2008, 13:41

janneppi

6th June 2008, 13:58

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

SGWilko

6th June 2008, 14:02

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

Sorry, what was that, I was too busy filling in the divorce forms..... ;)

You want more of - Max is silly because he is using a bottle opener to open the can of worms.......?

BDunnell

6th June 2008, 14:23

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

:laugh:

Azumanga Davo

6th June 2008, 14:40

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

At last, something we can do well... :D

Bagwan

7th June 2008, 14:48

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

I have not engaged in this aspect of this discussion , but I see direct relevence to the subject at hand .

It is our societal behavior that gives us the morals with which we judge such issues .

That you find this aspect of the subject to be "inane" , and "bickering" is "irrelevant" .
It is related .

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .

The morality of extra-marital activities , in this issue , was key to the success of the "sting" .
Max's success in defeating those who wanted to smear his name had the idea that the scandal itself would be enough to be worse in the public eye , than the idea of the "sting" , itself .
The addition of the uniforms gave it more weight , in terms of headlines , but served only to underline the issue that it was a man's personal life at it's most private .

Apart from implanting the thought of one's privacy being compromised , and the guilt involved with exposure , nobody gains here .
Perhaps some of the rich set have taken extra steps to keep things more private , and employed more people to staff video surveillance camera banks .

That they would go so far as to start talks of going without the FIA speaks reams about how this wasn't anything to do with morals in the first place .

Bernie said Max should go before the vote .
After the vote he said he was glad he didn't go .
Now , he sits to discuss the idea of going on without Max and the rest of the FIA .

As a member of the CAA , I am someone who was represented by my country's organization at the vote . It did not represent my views .

I would never dream of having extra-marital activity in my life , and do not condone such , but , my right to privacy relates to theft of something mine .
Theft involves loss of trust , and trust is most important of all .

ioan

7th June 2008, 15:35

You seem to disregard the amount of money Bernie is stuffing in his own pocket and making the different countries pay to host the races which make him money, and not giving enough back to the teams.

There does not need to be "some sort of socialist motorsport paradise in which there is even distribution of wealth amongst everyone" as you put it. I don't think anyone expects that in any sporting series. But there needs to be more money put back into the teams, and more into the bottom teams too. How can it be justified that the last team gets no money?

Well, yeah!! I have to agree with you that:"The problem is surely not the distribution of F1's money,"; The problem is the bugger who is not distributing the money in an equitable manner back to the teams.

Exactly.
You seem to be getting better! Keep it up! :up: ;)

ioan

7th June 2008, 15:36

I have not engaged in this aspect of this discussion , but I see direct relevence to the subject at hand .

It is our societal behavior that gives us the morals with which we judge such issues .

That you find this aspect of the subject to be "inane" , and "bickering" is "irrelevant" .
It is related .

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .

The morality of extra-marital activities , in this issue , was key to the success of the "sting" .
Max's success in defeating those who wanted to smear his name had the idea that the scandal itself would be enough to be worse in the public eye , than the idea of the "sting" , itself .
The addition of the uniforms gave it more weight , in terms of headlines , but served only to underline the issue that it was a man's personal life at it's most private .

Apart from implanting the thought of one's privacy being compromised , and the guilt involved with exposure , nobody gains here .
Perhaps some of the rich set have taken extra steps to keep things more private , and employed more people to staff video surveillance camera banks .

That they would go so far as to start talks of going without the FIA speaks reams about how this wasn't anything to do with morals in the first place .

Bernie said Max should go before the vote .
After the vote he said he was glad he didn't go .
Now , he sits to discuss the idea of going on without Max and the rest of the FIA .

As a member of the CAA , I am someone who was represented by my country's organization at the vote . It did not represent my views .

I would never dream of having extra-marital activity in my life , and do not condone such , but , my right to privacy relates to theft of something mine .
Theft involves loss of trust , and trust is most important of all .

Fully agree with Bagwan's view on this matter.

markabilly

7th June 2008, 15:46

Less inane bickering of irrelevant marriege stats and more insanely stupid bickering about the actual subject.

OK?

Ok
MaX read the prince, and followed it once again.

Per the prince, MaX succeeded in creating the appearance of a crisis, in a sufficient manner to "win" a certain vote, sued the villain (NOTW), warned them only he could defeat the truly evil one (Bernie) as well as appealling (or "influencing") to certain elements within the FIA, thereby justifying his continuance in the office through this charade of a vote.

In the process he followed the numerous examples of others similarly situated, such as Bill Clinton ("what sex, what woman...that is not sex...") where the stufff rolls off just like water off a duck's back, or as someone once said, never let them see you sweat.....

In the process, he may have created the justification for manufacturers behind the scenes, to breakaway from the FIA and bernie or for bernie to breakaway from the fia...................and not the comments of germany and so forth, about their leaving the FIA, and some of the smaller clubs getting money and so forth, http://msn.foxsports.com/motor/story/8203620/Mosley-wins-vote-of-confidence )

of course if ferrari will not go, then that will not happen except as a threat to try to drive bernie off his demands (hence the reason Ioan has taken the perch that he has taken, given his position for ferrari)

pretty simple actually for a skilled practioneer of the prince

Ball game over.

:beer:

janneppi

7th June 2008, 16:30

I also find it distasteful for you , to call this debate "insanely stupid bickering" .
Sorry , Janneppi , but that was insulting , and the kind of comment that regularly incites behavior that gets good debates such as this , closed down .
I disagree on that very much, few years on this forum have taught me that after 26 pages on the same subject begins to wear down people as they have been going over and over again the same old arguments several time already.
They sure as hell don't need my comments as an excuse to get on each others throat as is evident of the post deleted from this discussion.
For many, it's not about the discussion anymore, but seems to be the same old pissing contest(be it civilised or lowbrow) that surfaces time and time again, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid, therefore I have mostly stayed away from discussing on it and will do so in the future.
You may find my comments insulting, so be it, I can't please everyone.

Bagwan

7th June 2008, 17:01

I disagree on that very much, few years on this forum have taught me that after 26 pages on the same subject begins to wear down people as they have been going over and over again the same old arguments several time already.
They sure as hell don't need my comments as an excuse to get on each others throat as is evident of the post deleted from this discussion.
For many, it's not about the discussion anymore, but seems to be the same old pissing contest(be it civilised or lowbrow) that surfaces time and time again, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid, therefore I have mostly stayed away from discussing on it and will do so in the future.
You may find my comments insulting, so be it, I can't please everyone.

How moderate of you .

You can't please everyone , but you can please me by not insulting everyone .

ioan

7th June 2008, 17:29

Personally, I view big parts of this thread insaly stupid,...

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s
Whom should I report this now?! :p :

I see no problem with deleting posts that are being rude, uncivilized and so on. But calling others opinions and comments insanely stupid is not a good showing.

Just my 2c.

markabilly

7th June 2008, 17:31

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s
Whom should I report this now?! :p :

I see no problem with deleting posts that are being rude, uncivilized and so on. But calling others opinions and comments insanely stupid is not a good showing.

Just my 2c.

Hummm....ban the moderator for a couple of weeks??

:D

janneppi

7th June 2008, 18:12

Not the comment expected from a good moderator. :s

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

ioan

7th June 2008, 18:39

SGWilko

7th June 2008, 20:32

Bagwan

7th June 2008, 20:32

janneppi

7th June 2008, 21:06

I'd call it trying to change the subject .

Actually, it's you among others who are changing the subject commenting on my post. I was instructing members to stay on topic, albeit it was a rather frustrated comment, but it's you who are continuing with this issue instead of talking about Mosley and CO.

Perhaps a sign of a thread loosing it's momentum a bit? ;)

BDunnell

7th June 2008, 21:22

Well, what would you call counteless vulgar references to Mosleys private life, provacative personal comments about peoples ethics and moral, unpleasant xenophobic comments, and of course the normal off topic bickering which has little to do with the actual subject?
Just to name some things on the top of my head. I'd call those pretty stupid. ;)

I thought your original comment about insane bickering, or whatever it was, was meant tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realise it was intended to be serious.

For what it's worth, I think this thread has been pleasingly devoid of stupidity, even though people may disagree with one another. Discussion of individual morals is always going to cause disagreements, but I think it's highly relevant to explore this in a topic on a forum about motorsport when the subject, which is sadly the highest-profile subject to do with motorsport to have arisen for some time, is so inextricably linked with the views of individuals about personal conduct. To stop discussion of this subject would be ridiculous. Therefore, I don't see any way in which we can be prevented from talking about moral issues, for our opinions about Max Mosley and what should happen within the FIA are very closely linked with our own personal views about morals and privacy.

janneppi

7th June 2008, 21:32

I thought your original comment about insane bickering, or whatever it was, was meant tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realise it was intended to be serious.

Rest assured, there was some tongue involved :facelick: , altough with some bitter complaining. ;) I thought that was obvious for everyone.

markabilly

7th June 2008, 22:32

I thought your original comment about insane bickering, or whatever it was, was meant tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realise it was intended to be serious.

For what it's worth, I think this thread has been pleasingly devoid of stupidity, even though people may disagree with one another. Discussion of individual morals is always going to cause disagreements, but I think it's highly relevant to explore this in a topic on a forum about motorsport when the subject, which is sadly the highest-profile subject to do with motorsport to have arisen for some time, is so inextricably linked with the views of individuals about personal conduct. To stop discussion of this subject would be ridiculous. Therefore, I don't see any way in which we can be prevented from talking about moral issues, for our opinions about Max Mosley and what should happen within the FIA are very closely linked with our own personal views about morals and privacy.

This was something revealed that should have stayed private--as i said and some others said when it first became known. To date, I glanced at their page, just trying to figure out what the talk was, realized what it was and have never gone back. And if I had known more, I would not have even done that.

At first i thought this should have nothing to do with nothing as to racing, but then once I realized how public the sport is, well.....

Unfortunately, once smeared all over the world, it is a bit too difficult to put all of this back in a bottle and put it behind the cupboard.

Not only that, but it makes F1 fans and the F1 establishment appear to be the worst sort of hypocrites to the rest of the world. We would condemn some fans for dressing up and mocking Hamilton, so to make clear the unacceptability of such conduct, F1 (and FIA) start a massive program (with threats of banning events etc) against such stuff, only to have something like this mess of Max smeared all over, with the clear, nasty implications arising from these actvities, yet take a vote to have him stay.

And what he did, does easily lead itself to some gallows type humor, to most anyone with a sense of humor.

But back to Spain, I thought that was an over-reaction to people having fun, but many disagreed, because it touched on race.

Max's behavior clearly involved a much darker, nastier subject, but the FIA officially turns its head and goes on, due in part to what I beleive to be an excellent example of the political action and power of that little book, the prince, and perhaps greed or fear of some others about what might happen if Max were gone.

But the hypocrisy of the entire mess is overwhelming once you look at it from the outside world.

But all in all, I thought the debates last year over Mac and so forth, were far more interesting and challenging without the danger of getting into stuff like this......but no one, especially any poster or moderator on this forum, is responsible for damaging the image of F1, or exposing Max to to the basis for such ridcule, except Max himself.

So it does provoke deep emotions, even to the point of a moderator jumping on people in the same way that when some others have done it, has gotten them scolded or banned.

It should have never had anything to do with racing and F1 , but NOW it has everything to do with it, and the longer Max hangs around, the more the stench of it while remain in the air around F1.

BDunnell

7th June 2008, 22:34

markabilly, I think that was an excellent post, even though I have come to think that Max might have been hard done by. :up:

ioan

7th June 2008, 22:57

Yep, I agree, some excellent points were made in markabilly's post.
I especially like the part about being scolded or banned for the same behavior or less! :D :p :

Valve Bounce

7th June 2008, 23:09

Valve Bounce

7th June 2008, 23:18

Valve Bounce

7th June 2008, 23:20

.

The difference between this issue and Max's , in this sense , is only that his issue has nothing to do with his job .

I disagree - it was a scientific study of the symptoms and after effects of whiplash!!

Valve Bounce

7th June 2008, 23:26

This was something revealed that should have stayed private--as i said and some others said when it first became known. To date, I glanced at their page, just trying to figure out what the talk was, realized what it was and have never gone back. And if I had known more, I would not have even done that.

At first i thought this should have nothing to do with nothing as to racing, but then once I realized how public the sport is, well.....

Unfortunately, once smeared all over the world, it is a bit too difficult to put all of this back in a bottle and put it behind the cupboard.

Not only that, but it makes F1 fans and the F1 establishment appear to be the worst sort of hypocrites to the rest of the world. We would condemn some fans for dressing up and mocking Hamilton, so to make clear the unacceptability of such conduct, F1 (and FIA) start a massive program (with threats of banning events etc) against such stuff, only to have something like this mess of Max smeared all over, with the clear, nasty implications arising from these actvities, yet take a vote to have him stay.

And what he did, does easily lead itself to some gallows type humor, to most anyone with a sense of humor.

But back to Spain, I thought that was an over-reaction to people having fun, but many disagreed, because it touched on race.

Max's behavior clearly involved a much darker, nastier subject, but the FIA officially turns its head and goes on, due in part to what I beleive to be an excellent example of the political action and power of that little book, the prince, and perhaps greed or fear of some others about what might happen if Max were gone.

But the hypocrisy of the entire mess is overwhelming once you look at it from the outside world.

But all in all, I thought the debates last year over Mac and so forth, were far more interesting and challenging without the danger of getting into stuff like this......but no one, especially any poster or moderator on this forum, is responsible for damaging the image of F1, or exposing Max to to the basis for such ridcule, except Max himself.

So it does provoke deep emotions, even to the point of a moderator jumping on people in the same way that when some others have done it, has gotten them scolded or banned.

It should have never had anything to do with racing and F1 , but NOW it has everything to do with it, and the longer Max hangs around, the more the stench of it while remain in the air around F1.

Very good post. When you are serious and lay off that cool aid, you write very, very well. I have to view you in a totally new light.

ArrowsFA1

9th June 2008, 16:25

It should have never had anything to do with racing and F1 , but NOW it has everything to do with it, and the longer Max hangs around, the more the stench of it while remain in the air around F1.
A point never better illustrated by the recent Agence France Presse story about Max Mosley going to court in Paris against the News of the World. As GrandPrix.com point out (http://www.grandprix.com/gt/gt20408.html) the story begins : "Formula One boss Max Mosley has filed a lawsuit in Paris ..."

Garry Walker

11th June 2008, 23:50

Kimi is quite talkative lately, what`s wrong :D
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080611103021.shtml

Reigning world champion Kimi Raikkonen has again defended beleaguered FIA president Max Mosley amid the noise of the sex scandal.

More than two months ago, the Ferrari driver was a rare sympathetic voice for Mosley, whose job was on the line after he was caught with five prostitutes.

Raikkonen, the 28-year-old laconic Finn, said then: "It's his personal life and he can do whatever he wants and it's not really my business or anyone else's to put their noses in."

68-year-old Mosley last week was reconfirmed as FIA President following a confidence vote, and Raikkonen says those who backed the Briton made "a good decision.

He added in Canada last weekend: "For me it doesn't really matter. I think it is his personal life and really has nothing to do with F1.

SparkyKate

12th June 2008, 00:02

Kimi is quite talkative lately, what`s wrong :D
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080611103021.shtml

It's because he's got a few dodgy things in his private life too, just have to wonder if theres more to it then getting it out for poledancers and dry humping inflatable animals?!!

Tazio

12th June 2008, 00:05

Kimi is quite talkative lately, what`s wrong :D
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080611103021.shtml I find Kimi's posture on this subject admirable!

MAX_THRUST

12th June 2008, 08:22

Ioan so your one of the 9% that thinks it is acceptable to have some one like that in power.

It is impossible for him to act as head of the FIA if no one wants anything to do with him. What an arrogant fool. May he go down in history as the man that caught with his trousers down.

ArrowsFA1

12th June 2008, 08:35

I find Kimi's posture on this subject admirable!
Admirable maybe, but Kimi (and others who hold that view) miss the point. I don't think anyone has suggested that Max doesn't have the right to a private life.

The problem is that an aspect of Max's private life is no longer private.

SGWilko

12th June 2008, 08:53

Kimi is quite talkative lately, what`s wrong :D
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080611103021.shtml

I see this more Kimi kicking back at the media, as they have revealed some of his drunken antics in the past. I see it as 'I am entitled to a private life also', although you have to mumble that for effect... ;)

Tazio

12th June 2008, 08:56

Admirable maybe, but Kimi (and others who hold that view) miss the point. I don't think anyone has suggested that Max doesn't have the right to a private life.

The problem is that an aspect of Max's private life is no longer private. which means absolutely nothing to me! Sorry my man, I just don't buy into the whole shootin' match.

SGWilko

12th June 2008, 09:02

The neighbours of that Austrian freak - Fritzl - all thought he was a nice guy too. Look what he was up to in his private life. Funny how you see people in a different light when you know what they are really like, innit? *sound effect[suck teeth]/sound effect* ;)

Mickey T

12th June 2008, 12:42

i wonder what the mosley backers on this forum think of this guy?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23851449-401,00.html

that was his private life, after all.

ioan

12th June 2008, 13:55

i wonder what the mosley backers on this forum think of this guy?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23851449-401,00.html

that was his private life, after all.

That you are comparing apples with oranges.

Mosley isn't a judge in an obscenity trial.

SGWilko

12th June 2008, 14:00

That you are comparing apples with oranges.

Mosley isn't a judge in an obscenity trial. Mosley is however a trained barrister, and some my class his bahaviour as obscene. :dozey:

The comparison between the public having an insight into their respective private lives is not, however, comparing apples with oranges.

You aint the man from Del Monte by the way are you, all this talk of fruit..... :rolleyes:

Azumanga Davo

12th June 2008, 16:04

Mosley is however a trained barrister, and some my class his bahaviour as obscene. :dozey:

The comparison between the public having an insight into their respective private lives is not, however, comparing apples with oranges.

You aint the man from Del Monte by the way are you, all this talk of fruit..... :rolleyes:

ioan say yes. :p :

ioan

12th June 2008, 16:14

ioan

12th June 2008, 16:16

ioan say yes. :p :

Well at least it would mean I know the difference between an apples and oranges! :p :

F1boat

12th June 2008, 16:38

Actuallly to me the case resembles the one against Bill Clinton.

Tazio

12th June 2008, 18:46

Actuallly to me the case resembles the one against Bill Clinton.Brilliant counter attack, I must say! Maybe the best since The Batavian revolt!
A compelling rebuttle to an almost perfect arguement. It's one flaw is this guys lying his @ss off
about not knowing his web page could be viewed on the world wide web! :rotflmao:

Mickey T

12th June 2008, 20:09

ioan is right.

it is apples and oranges.

both public figures in positions of judgement over others.

both live indecent private lives.

both caught (and, according to max himself, it doesn't matter how one gets caught).

the american one stood down. the english one didn't.

apples and oranges.

Tazio

12th June 2008, 23:06

the american one stood down. the english one didn't.

apples and oranges.
I was sure Clinton served out his term after the coup to have him impeached
failed :p :

When did Max start sitting in judgement of matters dealing with sexual habits and preferences? This Judge excused himself from a case. A federal judge has an administration that appointed him to answer to. It's not all together clear what this mans motivation was.
Max on the other hand is sitting in judgement of things automotive! (I don't think his advice or decisions determine how far a virgin goes in the back seat of a car on a first date! Or if she participates in rough sex) Max does not have a higher up in the FIA. The argument is that he is acting on his own behalf, with out being removed.
This judge (according to the link) has excused himself from a case, NOT A JOB!!
In concluding, I have to agree with Ioan. This is not a completely similar situation and therefore can't be viewed as the same thing. Similar I will agree!
Max was not trying to make his private life public! I think this other Knucklehead was, on some level!
JMHO

Tazio

13th June 2008, 03:48

ioan

13th June 2008, 08:01

ioan is right.

it is apples and oranges.

both public figures in positions of judgement over others.

One judging a sexual affair while the other is in charge of the needs of the drivers. :rolleyes:
Must be the same thing for you! :D

Tell me which one are orange the apples or the oranges?! :p :

Knock-on

13th June 2008, 10:01

An interesting read I think! From an F1 business perspective!

One sport insider says: "However much the teams may disapprove of his behaviour, the line Mosley takes within Formula One is a line they, largely, support. The worry is that if he went, then it could all fall into other, unknown, hands." He says that Mosley provides a counterpoint to Formula One Holdings owner Bernie Ecclestone, and that "he can be relied upon to take a view of what is going to make the most successful future of motor racing".

http://www.mad.co.uk/Main/News/Articlex/98900e3b9c404d8c91a5fe602245d23f/Sex%2c-spies-and-automobiles.html

Well, we are talking about the sponsors in that article and not the detrimental effect this business has had on F1 and the FIA, for example:

Brands involved in sponsoring the sport seem to feel the scandal is far removed enough from them to keep schtum, in public at least. Vodafone, a lead sponsor of the Mercedes McLaren team, officially says that it accepts issues may occasionally arise on and off the track, but that it is "not our position to comment on such issues". Vodafone global brand director David Wheldon says the company "measures the impact of our brand awareness, preference and sponsorships, and whether our sponsorships are helping our customers feel positive about our brand".

Unofficially, it is believed Vodafone was active in voicing its discontent. A source close to the situation says: "Behind the scenes, some sponsors were deeply unhappy about the Mosley business, but were quietly told by their teams that it was in their best long-term interests that he remain."

It is a very interesting read though.

ArrowsFA1

13th June 2008, 12:39

Regarding Max 'n' Bernie...Nigel Roebuck has written (http://www.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2008/06/13/bernie-v-max-is-it-real-this-time/) that:

I was told by an FIA man that so livid was Mosley with Ecclestone that there had been no contact between them since [the EGM] – indeed, he said, Max had declined to take Bernie’s calls. Was that true? “Yes,” said Ecclestone. “Absolutely true. I’ve had no discussions with him since the vote.”

ioan

13th June 2008, 15:58

Who would want to talk to his backstabber?! :rolleyes:

Tazio

13th June 2008, 16:12

Well, we are talking about the sponsors in that article and not the detrimental effect this business has had on F1 and the FIA, for example:

Originally Posted by
Brands involved in sponsoring the sport seem to feel the scandal is far removed enough from them to keep schtum, in public at least. Vodafone, a lead sponsor of the Mercedes McLaren team, officially says that it accepts issues may occasionally arise on and off the track, but that it is "not our position to comment on such issues". Vodafone global brand director David Wheldon says the company "measures the impact of our brand awareness, preference and sponsorships, and whether our sponsorships are helping our customers feel positive about our brand".

Unofficially, it is believed Vodafone was active in voicing its discontent. A source close to the situation says: "Behind the scenes, some sponsors were deeply unhappy about the Mosley business, but were quietly told by their teams that it was in their best long-term interests that he remain."

It is a very interesting read though.

Sure Knockie, there is consternation by the advertisers. I for one try to disconnect them from the sport.
Alas they are inextricably linked to television, and to my way of thinking have perverted all professional sports.
The idea of the Corporate-Mafia strong-arming any sport makes me cringe :dozey:

Valve Bounce

14th June 2008, 00:11

One judging a sexual affair while the other is in charge of the needs of the drivers. :rolleyes:
Must be the same thing for you! :D

Tell me which one are orange the apples or the oranges?! :p :

Actually, they're both bananas. :p :

Tazio

14th June 2008, 00:17

Actually, they're both bananas. :p :

Or................................................ ..........Nuts? :p :

markabilly

14th June 2008, 04:09

Tazio

14th June 2008, 04:28

Of course, I would prefer the older days of less corporate stuff, so far as to be back to when there were no cars painted up like a box of cigarettes.....beer...tampexes or whatever....
As usual we are in total agreement! :dozey:

ioan

14th June 2008, 12:30

... the sponsors are the ones paying, so maybe the sponsors should be getting something back in return ...

The sponsors get 7 hours of world wide exposure every 2nd week, and that's why they pay, not for the sake of F1.

BDunnell

14th June 2008, 13:45

The sponsors get 7 hours of world wide exposure every 2nd week, and that's why they pay, not for the sake of F1.

And, to be honest, you have to wonder why recent events should bother them an awful lot. Even without the Mosley scandal, it's not as if F1 always puts on its best or most appropriate face for the public. Bernie is hardly a likeable figurehead for the sport (ask most non-enthusiast people what they think of him and it's unlikely to be positive) and, as I always say, its brash displays of wealth no longer seem entirely appropriate in these financially difficult times. The prospect of recession is surely far more of a worry in terms of keeping sponsors than anything Max has done to F1's image.

markabilly

14th June 2008, 13:47

The sponsors get 7 hours of world wide exposure every 2nd week, and that's why they pay, not for the sake of F1.
I know but I think the issue for them is that it now includes something of an association with the certain character known as Max........and if the benefit does not outweigh the cost, they would be gone in a second or less. But clearly, while some of the PR has been unpleasant, it has not risen to the point that their products are being directly associated with the stuff of Max, or they would be already gone. And forgot not, this sport was proud to be the last bastion of sponsorship for tobacco (and at some races, it still is)

They care about the sport of F1 about as much as they care about some billboard on the side of some road in the middle of no where

Sort of like the words of a drug dealer, never get hooked on your own product

BDunnell

14th June 2008, 13:53

But clearly, while some of the PR has been unpleasant, it has not risen to the point that their products are being directly associated with the stuff of Max, or they would be already gone. And forgot not, this sport was proud to be the last bastion of sponsorship for tobacco (and at some races, it still is)

:up:

Absolutely right.

ioan

14th June 2008, 14:37

I know but I think the issue for them is that it now includes something of an association with the certain character known as Max.

That's only for the very few hardcore F1 fans who did indeed follow the vents closer, and even a part of those were on Mosley's side.

So yeah the positives outweigh by far the negatives ( I would say in a proportion of 99 : 1 at least) for the F1 sponsors.

They care about the sport of F1 about as much as they care about some billboard on the side of some road in the middle of no where

:up: ;)

Valve Bounce

15th June 2008, 03:21

And, to be honest, you have to wonder why recent events should bother them an awful lot.
................

Bernie is hardly a likable figurehead for the sport (ask most non-enthusiast people what they think of him and it's unlikely to be positive) and, as I always say, its brash displays of wealth no longer seem entirely appropriate in these financially difficult times.

In fact, I have yet to come across a single comment in this forum that portrays Bernie even remotely as a likable identity. The closest I have seen to "likable" describe him as a greedy human waste byproduct.

jas123f1

15th June 2008, 11:37

I hope he stays a year or so - because he has been working for the sport and made a good job - I think that's not good if a scandal organised of a newspaper can decide who leads the FIA.

BDunnell

15th June 2008, 13:07

In fact, I have yet to come across a single comment in this forum that portrays Bernie even remotely as a likable identity. The closest I have seen to "likable" describe him as a greedy human waste byproduct.

Well, I'm not sure how good this or any forum is as a proper barometer of personal opinion, because there is a tendency to be inflammatory, but generally I think it's true that you won't hear too many positive comments about Bernie beyond 'successful'.

Garry Walker

15th June 2008, 13:55

And, to be honest, you have to wonder why recent events should bother them an awful lot. Even without the Mosley scandal, it's not as if F1 always puts on its best or most appropriate face for the public. Bernie is hardly a likeable figurehead for the sport (ask most non-enthusiast people what they think of him and it's unlikely to be positive) and, as I always say, its brash displays of wealth no longer seem entirely appropriate in these financially difficult times. The prospect of recession is surely far more of a worry in terms of keeping sponsors than anything Max has done to F1's image.

Bad publicity is still publicity.

Well, I'm not sure how good this or any forum is as a proper barometer of personal opinion, because there is a tendency to be inflammatory, but generally I think it's true that you won't hear too many positive comments about Bernie beyond 'successful'.

Bernie is extremely intelligent, cunning and takes no prisoners in his approach. I admire all these qualities.

BDunnell

15th June 2008, 13:58

Bernie is extremely intelligent, cunning and takes no prisoners in his approach. I admire all these qualities.

I don't automatically admire all these qualities, because I value other things much more highly, but I can understand why some think as you do.

Garry Walker

15th June 2008, 14:11

I don't automatically admire all these qualities, because I value other things much more highly, but I can understand why some think as you do.

Obviously, there are far more important characteristics of a person than those.

BDunnell

15th June 2008, 15:00

Obviously, there are far more important characteristics of a person than those.

Sorry to maybe misunderstand you!

Knock-on

16th June 2008, 11:12

Sure Knockie, there is consternation by the advertisers. I for one try to disconnect them from the sport.
Alas they are inextricably linked to television, and to my way of thinking have perverted all professional sports.
The idea of the Corporate-Mafia strong-arming any sport makes me cringe :dozey:

Oh, I agree, but we have to look at the bigger picture.

Max and Bernie have been playing tennis with the sport of F1 for way toooooo long now.

Max gives Bernie the commercial rights for a fraction of what they were worth and secures a mighty revenue for the FIA.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max negiotiates away the commercial rights secured for the FIA to a French media company.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max helps Bernie shoehorn the teams into the Concord Agreement.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max and Bernie want to encourage German exposure in F1 but unfortunatly there's a bit of a fire while refuelling due to a missing restrictor which "alledgedly" was sanctioned by the FIA. Max and Bernie meet with the Renault legal rep, Flav admits it's his fault, no sanction is issued and MS wins the WDC.

Guess what....

I think we all know where this is going.

Bernie and Max have been doing very well out of F1, thank you very much but suddenly Max is no longer in the club of 2.

Then we have the Sponsors, Manufacturers, Countries etc that are involved with F1. Sure, they are on the old Machavellian Merry Go Round where it's big corporate business and corporate brinkmanship. Yep, we have us mugs out here that buy the products that fund the sponsorship which bank-rolls the teams which partake in the race, which is put on by the tracks, which pay tribute to Bernie, which is governed by the FIA which is watched by the fans.

The wheel of life will continue in F1. The sponsors will continue to participate while it makes sense but they won't like the risk or exposure. The teams will not like the association, the important FIA members will not like being shat on and nobody in the sport wants to be associated with Max.

In this case, I agree, WATCH THE MONEY!

Tazio

16th June 2008, 14:17

Oh, I agree, but we have to look at the bigger picture.

Max and Bernie have been playing tennis with the sport of F1 for way toooooo long now.

Max gives Bernie the commercial rights for a fraction of what they were worth and secures a mighty revenue for the FIA.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max negiotiates away the commercial rights secured for the FIA to a French media company.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max helps Bernie shoehorn the teams into the Concord Agreement.

Max accumulates a lot of money from sources undisclosed.

Max and Bernie want to encourage German exposure in F1 but unfortunatly there's a bit of a fire while refuelling due to a missing restrictor which "alledgedly" was sanctioned by the FIA. Max and Bernie meet with the Renault legal rep, Flav admits it's his fault, no sanction is issued and MS wins the WDC.

Guess what....

I think we all know where this is going.

Bernie and Max have been doing very well out of F1, thank you very much but suddenly Max is no longer in the club of 2.

Then we have the Sponsors, Manufacturers, Countries etc that are involved with F1. Sure, they are on the old Machavellian Merry Go Round where it's big corporate business and corporate brinkmanship. Yep, we have us mugs out here that buy the products that fund the sponsorship which bank-rolls the teams which partake in the race, which is put on by the tracks, which pay tribute to Bernie, which is governed by the FIA which is watched by the fans.

The wheel of life will continue in F1. The sponsors will continue to participate while it makes sense but they won't like the risk or exposure. The teams will not like the association, the important FIA members will not like being shat on and nobody in the sport wants to be associated with Max.

In this case, I agree, WATCH THE MONEY!
Nice rant!

Max negiotiates away the commercial rights secured for the FIA to a French media company.
It is "La Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, and a nonprofit organization!
Should he have sold them to an Anglo media corp?
Your missing a very important distinction here. Bernie is powerful member of the Anglo-Mafia
Max is a Capo for the Continental-Mafia :p :
At times they have concerted efforts.
But only to a point! :dozey:

Valve Bounce

17th June 2008, 03:01

Nice rant!

It is "La Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, and a nonprofit organization!
Should he have sold them to an Anglo media corp?
Your missing a very important distinction here. Bernie is powerful member of the Anglo-Mafia
Max is a Capo for the Continental-Mafia :p :
At times they have concerted efforts.
But only to a point! :dozey:

Should let the Salvation Army take it over - at least the money would be put to very good use.

ioan

17th June 2008, 08:02

Knock-on

17th June 2008, 11:15

Nice rant!

It is "La Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, and a nonprofit organization!
Should he have sold them to an Anglo media corp?
Your missing a very important distinction here. Bernie is powerful member of the Anglo-Mafia
Max is a Capo for the Continental-Mafia :p :
At times they have concerted efforts.
But only to a point! :dozey:

I don't care if it was the Raving Looney Party. It was either a shocking decidion or something more sinister.

Basically, he did what he lambasted his predecesor for :laugh:

Knock-on

17th June 2008, 11:20

You call that the bigger picture? I only see Max in it! :D

Would the smaller picture be with Bernie?! :p :

That's because you're scared of taking your blinkers off and looking at a complete post objectivly.

Then we have the Sponsors, Manufacturers, Countries etc that are involved with F1. Sure, they are on the old Machavellian Merry Go Round where it's big corporate business and corporate brinkmanship. Yep, we have us mugs out here that buy the products that fund the sponsorship which bank-rolls the teams which partake in the race, which is put on by the tracks, which pay tribute to Bernie, which is governed by the FIA which is watched by the fans.

The wheel of life will continue in F1. The sponsors will continue to participate while it makes sense but they won't like the risk or exposure. The teams will not like the association, the important FIA members will not like being shat on and nobody in the sport wants to be associated with Max.

In this case, I agree, WATCH THE MONEY!

Are you some journo or you ran out of ideas and decided to copy paste different parts of my post in order to make it look confusing?!

Next time quote properly if you want to make a serious point, otherwise don't bother. Misquoting others makes you look amateurish at least.

Capisci?!

ioan

17th June 2008, 11:40

Well, I'm yet to see the real picture in your bigger picture, so sorry but I can't change my mind. All you did is depict it as if Mosley playing around with his pants down is now plastered on every F1 related publicity, which isn't the reality.

Most people have no idea that it happened, most of the rest don't really care, and the die hard Mosley haters keep posting their biased drivel about how everyone is losing money because Max stays.

In reality the only person who is in for a loss is Bernie, the rest of us are going to win on the excitement side if Max manages to get the costs down from the astronomic levels we are at now.

Knock-on

17th June 2008, 11:54

Well, I'm yet to see the real picture in your bigger picture, so sorry but I can't change my mind.

So, despite me quoting the rest of my post where I mention the FIA, Teams, Host Countries, Sponsors etc, you cannot recognise this as part of the bigger picture. Figures :laugh:

All you did is depict it as if Mosley playing around with his pants down is now plastered on every F1 related publicity, which isn't the reality.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to explain here. Can you clarify?

Most people have no idea that it happened, most of the rest don't really care, and the die hard Mosley haters keep posting their biased drivel about how everyone is losing money because Max stays.

Biased drivel?

Please explain why you think 99% of people haven't heard of what Max got up to. Everyone in my office has asked me about it and none of them follow F1. It's all about "What's this Max bloke then. He's in F1. Caught with his pants down. Ha, Ha!!"

It seems you're one of a very small minority that believe Max is good for F1 and his antics have not affected the sport detrimentally :p :

In reality the only person who is in for a loss is Bernie, the rest of us are going to win on the excitement side if Max manages to get the costs down from the astronomic levels we are at now.

Please tell me what has happened, not what may theoretically happen in the future or how all of a sudden, teams will drop the price they charge for sponsorship :laugh: That is soooo funny, it really is :laugh:

You could start with what the FIA has done for the Motor Industry as you keep claiming. Things like safety? What are they actually responsible for to justify the exhalted status that you attribute to Max and the FIA?

I've been asking for some time now?

ArrowsFA1

17th June 2008, 12:07

Most people have no idea that it happened, most of the rest don't really care, and the die hard Mosley haters keep posting their biased drivel about how everyone is losing money because Max stays
Are you describing 90% (the current % in the poll here) of forum members as "die hard Mosley haters"?

Bagwan

17th June 2008, 18:26

The best argument ayone can come out with to get rid of Max is that he isn't shakng hands with dignitaries , seemingly a crucial part of his job .

Mind you , he has sent deputies in his place , but then , if he cannot attend for any reason , that would be his job .

So , I guess Max is doing his job then .

Better find a better way than a hooker scandal if you want rid of Max .
Maybe something having something to do with his job would do it .

BDunnell

17th June 2008, 20:49

You call that the bigger picture? I only see Max in it! :D

Would the smaller picture be with Bernie?! :p :

Until a few months ago, you used to see both of them in the same picture, and it wasn't a pretty one. I wish all our opinions could be as 'versatile'...

ioan

18th June 2008, 08:59

Are you describing 90% (the current % in the poll here) of forum members as "die hard Mosley haters"?

Exactly!

ioan

18th June 2008, 09:00

Until a few months ago, you used to see both of them in the same picture, and it wasn't a pretty one. I wish all our opinions could be as 'versatile'...

As I said, I'm an open minded person! ;)

ArrowsFA1

18th June 2008, 09:16

The best argument ayone can come out with to get rid of Max is that he isn't shakng hands with dignitaries , seemingly a crucial part of his job.
As the President, and therefore main figurehead, of a global organisation being snubbed very publicly by dignitaries around the world does nothing for that organisation's reputation and standing.

The mere fact that the FIA has been structured in such a way by the President ensured his "victory" at the EGM. That raises questions over his stewardship of the FIA. As another example, the F1 Commision was disbanded by Max (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7456405.stm) at the end of 2007. Why? The commision had been the place where the F1 rules were set before being approved by the FIA, but now it is the FIA that decides, so therefore more power secured by Max. His Presidency is littered with such political moves he designed to secure his position.

On specific issues...why, for example, did the FIA President, who was to be judging the Benetton fuel rig case, allegedly (there has been no libel case to contest this) advise the teams defending lawyer how to plead the night before the hearing to ensure they were not kicked out of the championship? Is that someone acting in a fair and impartial manner, and in the interests of the sport?

Sorry Bagwan but there are many arguments to be made as to why Max should go, and only his own scaremongering argues for him staying.

ShiftingGears

18th June 2008, 09:57

As I said, I'm an open minded person! ;)

One that labels all the people that disagree with you as die-hard Mosely haters?

ioan

18th June 2008, 10:25

One that labels all the people that disagree with you as die-hard Mosely haters?

Yep, and rightly so!

Bagwan

18th June 2008, 12:13

As the President, and therefore main figurehead, of a global organisation being snubbed very publicly by dignitaries around the world does nothing for that organisation's reputation and standing.

The mere fact that the FIA has been structured in such a way by the President ensured his "victory" at the EGM. That raises questions over his stewardship of the FIA. As another example, the F1 Commision was disbanded by Max (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7456405.stm) at the end of 2007. Why? The commision had been the place where the F1 rules were set before being approved by the FIA, but now it is the FIA that decides, so therefore more power secured by Max. His Presidency is littered with such political moves he designed to secure his position.

On specific issues...why, for example, did the FIA President, who was to be judging the Benetton fuel rig case, allegedly (there has been no libel case to contest this) advise the teams defending lawyer how to plead the night before the hearing to ensure they were not kicked out of the championship? Is that someone acting in a fair and impartial manner, and in the interests of the sport?

Sorry Bagwan but there are many arguments to be made as to why Max should go, and only his own scaremongering argues for him staying.

Don't forget last year , when he managed to keep two top contenders in the race , despite driving stolen cars .
Is that someone acting in a fair and impartial manner , and in the interests of the sport ?

There were no hookers in either case , Arrows .
This was about hookers .

If the clubs of the FIA want to get rid , they need to use an issue related to F1 .

By the way , those big numbers that are quoted membership tallies fo the CAA , and AAA in North America seem to read like the whole club wants him out .
I hate to break it to you , but nobody to whom I've spoken , as members of CAA , even knew they were members by association in the FIA .
Sure , it looks good when you use statistics to prove a point , but numbers here mean little if the general membership had little to do with the decision . I know they didn't ask me t vote on whether the vote would be for or against .

ArrowsFA1

18th June 2008, 12:57

Don't forget last year , when he managed to keep two top contenders in the race , despite driving stolen cars .
Is that someone acting in a fair and impartial manner , and in the interests of the sport?
Was that Bernie keeping them in the race and not Max? According to some accounts Max was intent on removing McLaren from the championship, largely because of personal animosity towards Ron Dennis, and was only prevented from doing so by Bernie. The alleged "witchunt" of course led to spats with, most noteably, Brundle (whatever happened to that lawsuit?) and Stewart and was brought into further focus with the Renault case.

There have been many examples of inconsitent application of the rules, and imposition of penalties under Max's watch, something that his FIA has encouraged by rules being designed to be open to interpretation by, guess who, the FIA.

By the way , those big numbers that are quoted membership tallies fo the CAA , and AAA in North America seem to read like the whole club wants him out .
I hate to break it to you , but nobody to whom I've spoken , as members of CAA , even knew they were members by association in the FIA .
Sure , it looks good when you use statistics to prove a point , but numbers here mean little if the general membership had little to do with the decision . I know they didn't ask me t vote on whether the vote would be for or against .
That's interesting to know. I guess it would hardly be practical for a vote to be taken of individual members, but the fact that members of the CAA were not aware they were members by association in the FIA does not do the FIA much credit in itself.

SGWilko

18th June 2008, 13:04

As I said, I'm an open minded person! ;)

I would close it mate, before what is left makes a bid for freedom. ;) :p :

Bagwan

18th June 2008, 13:46

That's interesting to know. I guess it would hardly be practical for a vote to be taken of individual members, but the fact that members of the CAA were not aware they were members by association in the FIA does not do the FIA much credit in itself.

The point , though , is that the strength of the displeasure came from the heads of the organizations , not from the general membership . Few of them even knew they were members .
Those calling for dismissal , dismissed the vote as a fraud , because of grand membership numbers .

The FIA logo is on the CAA card , and , not being a sporting club , but a "free-tow" , "free map" , safety organization , is generally unconcerned about racing .
Why would a group without racing , with members generally unaware they had any voice in the matter , hold any weight in this issue ?
Whether Max was with the heads of state in Monaco shaking hands or not has little to do with whether or not they come to tow me home .

It has little to do with hookers as well .

ioan

18th June 2008, 14:39

I would close it mate, before what is left makes a bid for freedom. ;) :p :

Being a free minded person is a good thing! :D
You can however keep your box closed! :p :

ioan

18th June 2008, 14:43

According to some accounts Max was intent on removing McLaren from the championship, largely because of personal animosity towards Ron Dennis, ...

And ofcourse there is NO proof for this, but Brundle's Science-Fiction column! :rolleyes:

BTW, you know it very well that I would have loved to see the end of Ron "Integrity" Dennis and McLiars in F1, and it would have been a very just decision based on how much they harmed F1 last year. Compared to them Max's little adventure was a walk in the park. But some can't tell apples from oranges, neither based on color nor on taste.

ArrowsFA1

19th June 2008, 08:20

Why would a group without racing , with members generally unaware they had any voice in the matter , hold any weight in this issue?
Simply because these kind of groups come under the FIA. Is the FIA not supposed to represent motorists as well as govern motor racing? As such the FIA President is accountable One of the issues with this, graphically illustrated by the news of Max's case against the NOTW being held in France, is that he is seen generally as the "boss of F1", not the FIA President.

And ofcourse there is NO proof for this, but Brundle's Science-Fiction column! :rolleyes: .
Brundle's opinions on the subject were not a lone voice, and he made a telling point:

The timing of the writ is significant, in my view, given the FIA’s decision to find Renault guilty of having significant McLaren designs and information within their systems, but not administering any penalty. It is a warning sign to other journalists and publications to choose their words carefully over that decision. I’m tired of what I perceive as the “spin” and tactics of the FIA press office, as are many other journalists. I expect my accreditation pass for next year will be hindered in some way to make my coverage of F1 more difficult and to punish me. Or they will write to ITV again to say that my commentary is not up to standard despite my unprecedented six Royal Television Society Awards for sports broadcasting. So be it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3021312.ece

However, it seems rather than restricting Brundle's accreditation, or complaining to ITV, the FIA have quietly dropped their case against Brundle/The Times after initially making a great deal of noise about it. Far more effective to do that, and call people "half-wits" to gain attention, than it is to actually substantiate those claims.

SGWilko

19th June 2008, 10:15

Being a free minded person is a good thing! :D
You can however keep your box closed! :p :

;) :laugh:

SGWilko

19th June 2008, 10:17

And ofcourse there is NO proof for this, but Brundle's Science-Fiction column! :rolleyes:

BTW, you know it very well that I would have loved to see the end of Ron "Integrity" Dennis and McLiars in F1, and it would have been a very just decision based on how much they harmed F1 last year. Compared to them Max's little adventure was a walk in the park. But some can't tell apples from oranges, neither based on color nor on taste.

So, oranges don't require peeling, do they, or is that apples.

Oh shoot, I'm all confused now. What was the question again? ;)

Garry Walker

19th June 2008, 11:38

Automoto365.com recently wrote a little about Mosley in their "spies from Canada" piece, because they require registration, I will copy here the relevant quotes.

...
Apart from an exciting race and the usual aggravation with the tarmac, the paddock spoke about a war between Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley. Whenever these two argue in public you have to ask yourself whether it is not just show. This time at least there was a little bit more of a serious note to it. Bernie is an employee of CVC, the commercial right holders of Formula One and therefore he has to work on behalf of CVC and play the music they want him to play.

Max Mosley is the biggest threat to CVC and he does not want to give up his veto-right on any potential buyer. He insists that the FIA has to keep authority over the rules, and he is refusing to sign a new Concorde Agreement. Firstly the FIA does not need a new one, the CVC does, and so do the teams. Mosley only wants to sign this agreement,if there are plans on how to tackle the rising costs. His proposal is to bring the Concorde Agreement back to the basics of the very first one in 1981, in which the commercial right holder only got 8 percent from the income and the teams had the rest. This is obviously completely against the interests of CVC, who thin, that 50/50 is the maximum they could afford.

Whatever they say, there are plans to sell Formula One, all the evidence points to it. Some people believe that Rupert Murdoch is interested in Formula One, but only as long as it is good value. The problem is the FIA with Max Mosley as a strong president. The government will do everything to keep the shares in F1 as unattractive as possible. At the moment the value of the sport is getting smaller and smaller with all the unsolved problems that we have, with all the blocking factors to get more money out of it. For example, no Concorde Agreement means no stability.

For CVC the scandal about Mosley’s private life was like a Christmas present, because that opened a campaign to get rid of him. They never thought that Max would stand up against it, but as soon as it became clear that he got the necessary votes in the FIA's general assembly, CVC sent Ecclestone to the front to say in public that Max should resign. The question now is whether Bernie is just doing what he is asked to do, or whether he wants this himself. He organized two team principal meetings in which he wanted a joint statement from the teams against Max, and in case he should refuse to resign, Bernie has put a breakaway championship on the table as an alternative. The interesting part of this story is, just who has the last joker up his sleeve?

Rumours say, that Max Mosley does now know the people who set him up and paid for the sting but it is well possible that a few people inside CVC have become a bit nervous. Whatever the truth behind the story is, Max Mosley might come out of it all with a repaired image.

ioan

19th June 2008, 12:40

I'm all for Mosley and a new Concorde agreement that would bring costs down and give the teams a bigger share of the money, this would mean more teams in F1 in the future.
And these are Max's real intentions I suppose that the teams will support him rather than the CVC.

ArrowsFA1

19th June 2008, 12:44

Automoto365.com recently wrote a little about Mosley in their "spies from Canada" piece, because they require registration, I will copy here the relevant quotes.
Isn't that website owned by Nicolas Todt's company. Perhaps, in the light of Jean Todt's defence of Max the contents are not too surprising.

Bernie is an employee of CVC...Mosley is the biggest threat to CVC...For CVC the scandal about Mosley’s private life was like a Christmas present...Rumours say, that Max Mosley does now know the people who set him up and paid for the sting but it is well possible that a few people inside CVC have become a bit nervous
All good stuff.

ioan

19th June 2008, 12:49

All good stuff.

As good as the one where you say that Max wanted to punish McLaren because he had a personal problem with Ron! :rolleyes:

ArrowsFA1

19th June 2008, 12:59

As good as the one where you say that Max wanted to punish McLaren because he had a personal problem with Ron! :rolleyes:
It's not me saying that ioan, it's been widely reported and dates back a long time.

ioan

19th June 2008, 13:23

It's not me saying that ioan, it's been widely reported and dates back a long time.

And if we repeat it plenty of times than 1=2 will be true?!

ArrowsFA1

19th June 2008, 14:02

And if we repeat it plenty of times than 1=2 will be true?!
A quick search on Autosport (http://www.autosport.com) will show many clashes between the two over a number of different issues. It's quite illuminating :p

ioan

19th June 2008, 14:45

A quick search on Autosport (http://www.autosport.com) will show many clashes between the two over a number of different issues. It's quite illuminating :p

A quick search will get you also clashes between the other teams and the FIA, so what, did Max try to get rid of them?! Doesn't look like that.

Don't underestimate Max, if he wanted Ron and McCheats destroyed than he would have ultimately achieved it, but he didn't want that, he only wanted the truth to come out, that Ron lied and his team cheated! I know it's difficult to accept, it would have been for me too if it was about Ferrari, but you ought to take it like men.

ArrowsFA1

19th June 2008, 15:13

A quick search will get you also clashes between the other teams and the FIA, so what, did Max try to get rid of them?! Doesn't look like that.
A good point, but then Ron only runs McLaren. Perhaps Max is swayed by personal animosity.

Don't underestimate Max, if he wanted Ron and McLaren destroyed than he would have ultimately achieved it...
You may be forgetting this report (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62395). From that it seems Max would have preferred to see McLaren excluded from the championship for two years. Fortunately common sense prevailed. Still, Max felt exclusion from 2007 and a $100m fine was "a very minor punishment".

ioan

19th June 2008, 17:19

You may be forgetting this report (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62395). From that it seems Max would have preferred to see McLaren excluded from the championship for two years. Fortunately common sense prevailed. Still, Max felt exclusion from 2007 and a $100m fine was "a very minor punishment".

Very powerful people, including BE, wanted to get rid of him and created the scandal we all know for that purpose, however he proved he is stronger than them.
Do you believe that he couldn't have got McLaren banned for 2 seasons if he really wanted to?

Don't be foolish, what Max acted in F1's best interests and accepted a compromise with McLaren. When they found several Ferrari systems on the new car he had what he needed to throw them out for good, still he did what was right for the sport and only asked for a public apology from them ( and Ron "integrity" Dennis wasn't even man enough to sign it himself! ).

Dave B

19th June 2008, 17:42

Very powerful people, including BE, wanted to get rid of him and created the scandal we all know for that purpose...<snip>
Steady on old chap. Are you suggesting that Bernie somehow engineered the whole thing? Persuarded Max to visit prostitutes and arranged for the ensuing orgy to be filmed? I'm sure you're not suggesting that, becuase that would be a serious and potentially libellous accusation.

Tazio

19th June 2008, 20:18

Actually it was MI5 working in concert with the Anglo-Mafia! :p :

Knock-on

19th June 2008, 20:34

A quick search will get you also clashes between the other teams and the FIA, so what, did Max try to get rid of them?! Doesn't look like that.

Don't underestimate Max, if he wanted Ron and McCheats destroyed than he would have ultimately achieved it, but he didn't want that, he only wanted the truth to come out, that Ron lied and his team cheated! I know it's difficult to accept, it would have been for me too if it was about Ferrari, but you ought to take it like men.

For someone with such an open (as in the lights are on but nobody's home :laugh: ) mind, you do sound rather like a scratched record.

Are you seriously suggesting, nay claiming, that Max doesn't let his animosity to Ron affect his decisions?

McLaren had Ferrari data. That is a fact and some of that information was indeed used. Nobody is denying that although for some reason you feel the need to constantly bring it up and claim nobody accepts the fact. McLaren received a $100M fine etc and Max claimed this was letting them off lightly.

So, my dear chap. Tell me about le cheats then. Why is Renault having McLaren parts on their car not dealt with similarly? For someone with such an open mind, it looks obvious on the surface, does it not.

Oh, I see! An open mind is only useful when you can change your stance to suit your arguement :p :

trumperZ06

19th June 2008, 21:24

For someone with such an open (as in the lights are on but nobody's home :laugh: ) mind, you do sound rather like a scratched record.

Are you seriously suggesting, nay claiming, that Max doesn't let his animosity to Ron affect his decisions?

McLaren had Ferrari data. That is a fact and some of that information was indeed used. Nobody is denying that although for some reason you feel the need to constantly bring it up and claim nobody accepts the fact. McLaren received a $100M fine etc and Max claimed this was letting them off lightly.

So, my dear chap. Tell me about le cheats then. Why is Renault having McLaren parts on their car not dealt with similarly? For someone with such an open mind, it looks obvious on the surface, does it not.

Oh, I see! An open mind is only useful when you can change your stance to suit your arguement :p :

;) Hhmmmm... it seems like having.... "an open mind"...

in an attempt to defend Max's vindictive WITCH HUNT of Dennis...

accompanlied with...

an egregious SEX SCANDAL,

simply displays one's inability to provide a sound arguement !!!

SGWilko

20th June 2008, 12:34

So, my dear chap. Tell me about le cheats then. Why is Renault having McLaren parts on their car not dealt with similarly? For someone with such an open mind, it looks obvious on the surface, does it not.

That Max did not do the same - you can't work on any thechnology that could be deemed McLaren Ideas to Renault (who had detailed documentation of the McLaren J Damper loaded on their computer system) is an insult. It does demonstrate though his bias, doesn't it. :rolleyes:

You know the saying - if you had twice as many brain cells you'd be a......?

Is there now perhaps an understanding why someone keeps bringing up fruit comparisons? :p :

SGWilko

20th June 2008, 12:35

Actually it was MI5 working in concert with the Anglo-Mafia! :p :

The only thing MI5 are any good at is leaving laptops on trains.

PSfan

20th June 2008, 13:42

I would just like to note, that I would think that if someone walked into one of those dungeons like where Max visited and said "I need a prostitute/hooker/whore" I would suspect they would be quickly shown the door...

For someone with such an open (as in the lights are on but nobody's home :laugh: ) mind, you do sound rather like a scratched record.

Funny, seems like some are suffering from a power outage :rolleyes:

Are you seriously suggesting, nay claiming, that Max doesn't let his animosity to Ron affect his decisions?

If you look at the whole spygate incident, Max had plenty of opportunity to stick a knife into RD but didn't...

Stop reading that Brundle BS... you should already be aware of the stink it carries... smell like...

McLaren had Ferrari data. That is a fact and some of that information was indeed used. Nobody is denying that although for some reason you feel the need to constantly bring it up and claim nobody accepts the fact. McLaren received a $100M fine etc and Max claimed this was letting them off lightly.

So, my dear chap. Tell me about le cheats then. Why is Renault having McLaren parts on their car not dealt with similarly? For someone with such an open mind, it looks obvious on the surface, does it not.

The first paragraph answers your question in the later... Renault weren't given the $100m fine and the fun that goes with it because there was no evidence to suggest they used the McLeran information... exactly the same punishment that McLeran recieved at first time around concerning the stepneygate saga... But I guess giving McLeran a warning first time around was Max's attempt at getting rid of RD?

Knock-on

20th June 2008, 14:02

I would just like to note, that I would think that if someone walked into one of those dungeons like where Max visited and said "I need a prostitute/hooker/whore" I would suspect they would be quickly shown the door...

Probably, seeing as most of them allegedly only spoke German :laugh:

Funny, seems like some are suffering from a power outage :rolleyes:

I tend to put forward facts backed up by the opinions of people involved in the sport. The truth doesn't change just because it's ignored by a very small minority :rolleyes:

If you look at the whole spygate incident, Max had plenty of opportunity to stick a knife into RD but didn't...

Nope, he let him off with a kiss on the cheek like he did with Renault :laugh:

If you remember correctly, he wanted to throw them out for a couple of years and bankrupt them. What he was forced to do was fine them an unprecidented amount of money. I think he's still upset he didn't finish Ron off personally but that's only an opinion.

Stop reading that Brundle BS... you should already be aware of the stink it carries... smell like...

It actually makes perfect sense and is a widely held view in the sport. Just because you don't like it doesn't really change anything as the people that matter are the ones saying it.

The first paragraph answers your question in the later... Renault weren't given the $100m fine and the fun that goes with it because there was no evidence to suggest they used the McLeran information... exactly the same punishment that McLeran recieved at first time around concerning the stepneygate saga... But I guess giving McLeran a warning first time around was Max's attempt at getting rid of RD?

There was evidence. It was a whitewash.

PSfan

20th June 2008, 15:17

Probably, seeing as most of them allegedly only spoke German :laugh:

I'm sure most readers understood the point I was making... but if I need to repeat myself, this disclaimer taken from a a dom from Calgary says it best:

PLEASE NOTE: Domination is NOT Prostitution. If this is what you are seeking - look elsewhere!

I tend to put forward facts backed up by the opinions of people involved in the sport. The truth doesn't change just because it's ignored by a very small minority :rolleyes:

Facts backed by opinions???

Also I hadn't realised people involved in the sport had an opinion on ioans "lights being on"

Nope, he let him off with a kiss on the cheek like he did with Renault :laugh:

Well, I'm not sure about the kiss on the cheek, but at first he was gonna let them off until emails and such suggested an attempt to use the Ferrari data was used contrary to what Mcleran's claims where.

If Max was really out to get RD, fines and other penalties could have been levied before the Alonso - PDR messages came to light...

If you remember correctly, he wanted to throw them out for a couple of years and bankrupt them. What he was forced to do was fine them an unprecidented amount of money. I think he's still upset he didn't finish Ron off personally but that's only an opinion.

Based on precidents from the WRC... the 2 year ban was expected... As I posted before, if Max was really out to get RD he could have leveraged the Stepneygate saga to more effect to get RD out of the sport.

It actually makes perfect sense and is a widely held view in the sport. Just because you don't like it doesn't really change anything as the people that matter are the ones saying it.

The link that Arrows provided ealier about the "double standards" is a prime example... it ignores the FACT that Mcleran was initially given the same penalty that renault received and bases everythin ont the "out to get Mcleran theory that is laughable at best...

Thanks to "witchhunt" and "pikey" comments, pretty soon that Times column might be the only thing on Martin's plate... the sport will be better when that happens...

There was evidence. It was a whitewash.

What evidence? based on the timing of it... Renault had gotten useless information... they where defending champions at the time, and the only thing of value maybe was the j-damper, and only because of the simularities to their mass dampers system that was deemed illegal.

ioan

20th June 2008, 15:31

Steady on old chap. Are you suggesting that Bernie somehow engineered the whole thing? Persuarded Max to visit prostitutes and arranged for the ensuing orgy to be filmed? I'm sure you're not suggesting that, becuase that would be a serious and potentially libellous accusation.

You have a very healthy fantasy!

ioan

20th June 2008, 15:32

For someone with such an open (as in the lights are on but nobody's home :laugh: ) mind, you do sound rather like a scratched record.
:rotflmao:
Look who's talking, again! :rolleyes:

ioan

20th June 2008, 15:34

;) Hhmmmm... it seems like having.... "an open mind"...

in an attempt to defend Max's vindictive WITCH HUNT of Dennis...

accompanlied with...

an egregious SEX SCANDAL,

simply displays one's inability to provide a sound arguement !!!

The poorest argument ever to be expressed in this thread! Thanks a lot! :p :

ioan

20th June 2008, 15:40

I tend to put forward facts backed up by the opinions of people involved in the sport. The truth doesn't change just because it's ignored by a very small minority :rolleyes:

:rotflmao:

The truth isn't in people's opinions (and even those are carefully selected to suit your POV)! The truth is in the facts. Hope it isn't to big of a shock for you to accept that! :p :

ioan

20th June 2008, 15:43

Also I hadn't realised people involved in the sport had an opinion on ioans "lights being on" .

Don't worry PSfan, we all know that Knockie is venting his frustrations around here, using all kind of "intelligent" snipes about language and lights...
Better not bother him, who knows what happens if he gets more frustrated.

trumperZ06

21st June 2008, 20:03

:rotflmao:

The truth isn't in people's opinions (and even those are carefully selected to suit your POV)! The truth is in the facts. Hope it isn't to big of a shock for you to accept that! :p :

:p : The problem is Ioan,

Many of us lose patience with you when you...

CONTINUE to refuse to acknowlege the "FACTS".

Arrows... as well as many many others, time & time and time again,
give you reference sources that back up statements... that you refuse to accept.

Just take a few minutes to look and you'll see...

how FEW people agree with you...

compared to the MANY who make fun of your posts.

ioan

21st June 2008, 20:57

:p : The problem is Ioan,

Many of us lose patience with you when you...

CONTINUE to refuse to acknowlege the "FACTS".

Arrows... as well as many many others, time & time and time again,
give you reference sources that back up statements... that you refuse to accept.

Just take a few minutes to look and you'll see...

how FEW people agree with you...

compared to the MANY who make fun of your posts.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's a$$ about you losing patience or not.
Statements are not always reflections of facts.

Tell me, the US official statements about Iraqi mass destruction weapons were about facts or about fiction?! :p :

:s mokin:

trumperZ06

22nd June 2008, 01:01

[quote="ioan"]Honestly, I don't give a rat's a$$ about you losing patience or not.

:s mokin:[/QUOTE

BRUHAAAHAAA... way to go Ioan...

:p : Your mind's made up... we shouldn't confuse you with FACTS !!!

:dozey: Remind me... not to mess mess around with morons...

they try to bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

janneppi

22nd June 2008, 06:00

Less stupid, more topic.

ArrowsFA1

24th June 2008, 12:37

Bernie Ecclestone has taken the unprecedented step of issuing an denial that he or anyone associated with him was involved in the exposure of Max Mosley’s predilection for sado-masochistic sex with prostitutes.
In an interview with The Times, Ecclestone, the billionaire Formula One commercial rights holder, said he had no interest in “destroying” the embattled FIA president. The men have been close friends and business associates for more than 40 years, but their friendship is under severe strain after Mosley’s refusal to resign as result of the scandal.
“It is nothing in the world to do with me in any shape or form,” Ecclestone said at his London office. “Secondly, this sort of thing is not my style - not the sort of way I would operate. Thirdly, there is no way in the world that I would want to destroy Max. To suggest I would want to do that is such a lot of b****cks, quite frankly - it’s not true.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4200459.ece

So, after accusations being made against MI5 and Ron Dennis now it's Bernie's turn :rolleyes:

ioan

24th June 2008, 12:55

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4200459.ece

So, after accusations being made against MI5 and Ron Dennis now it's Bernie's turn :rolleyes:

Do not worry, the truth will eventually come to the surface.

Bagwan

24th June 2008, 13:39

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4200459.ece

So, after accusations being made against MI5 and Ron Dennis now it's Bernie's turn :rolleyes:

Round up the usual suspects .

This is hardly a surprise , is it ?
MI5 wife directly involved , so MI5 investigated . Seems logical .

Ron , known adversary , investigated . Also logical .

Bernie , current adversary in high level talks , investigated . Seems even more logical .

Way better plot than last year's scandal , as , in that one , we knew "who dunnit" .

ArrowsFA1

24th June 2008, 13:54

Round up the usual suspects .
Or throw enough mud around. Some may stick somewhere :p

The instigator of last year's "...gate" was a lot easier to find. He wore red and worked in Maranello :p

SGWilko

24th June 2008, 14:32

Do not worry, the truth will eventually come to the surface.

Maybe 'her indoors' had had enough, and it was time for revenge?

I can imagine, if Spitting Image were still going, they would portray Mr & Mrs Mosley like John and Norma Major - grey, pushing peas round the dinner plate not talking to each other. Allegedly ;)

Perhaps his Son wanted a Ferrari more than daddy realised....... possibly.

ArrowsFA1

25th June 2008, 13:55

The FIA is to conduct a full review on how Formula One is governed in the future, in a move that could be viewed as a bid to enhance the governing body's control of the sport at the expense of Bernie Ecclestone.

And the FIA's bid to increase its influence was further emphasised when it announced plans to create a Formula Two championship from the start of 2009 - something that would be in direct competition to the Ecclestone-supported GP2 Series.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68627

trumperZ06

25th June 2008, 17:17

Round up the usual suspects .

This is hardly a surprise , is it ?
MI5 wife directly involved , so MI5 investigated . Seems logical .

Ron , known adversary , investigated . Also logical .

Bernie , current adversary in high level talks , investigated . Seems even more logical .

Way better plot than last year's scandal , as , in that one , we knew "who dunnit" .

;) Watching Mad Max and his cronies attempting to finger a culprit...

Kinda reminds one of a blindfolded person thashing around...

trying to hit a Pinotta !!!

Bagwan

25th June 2008, 18:50

;) Watching Mad Max and his cronies attempting to finger a culprit...

Kinda reminds one of a blindfolded person thashing around...

trying to hit a Pinotta !!!

Sounds like you know whodunnit , Trump .

Give us a clue .

Knock-on

26th June 2008, 13:12

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68627

There is war brewing and it's going to be bloody.

Can the FIA survive?

The horrible thing is that it's like looking at a car crash in slow motion. You can see exactly what's happening but cannot do anything about it.

Max has gone way beyond being an embarrassment now to being the catalyst and driving force for conflict. I trully believe that his ego and pride is what's perpetuating this.

Tazio

26th June 2008, 13:26

There is war brewing and it's going to be bloody.

Can the FIA survive?

The horrible thing is that it's like looking at a car crash in slow motion. You can see exactly what's happening but cannot do anything about it.

Max has gone way beyond being an embarrassment now to being the catalyst and driving force for conflict. I trully believe that his ego and pride is what's perpetuating this.

"The FIA will enter into a wide-ranging consultation with the Formula One teams to examine plans for improved efficiency, including new technical regulations for the Championship. This will also involve a review of the governance of Formula One," said the statement.

"The FIA will invite tenders for a new feeder series for Formula One," the governing body said.

"This championship, called Formula Two, would be launched in 2009 and used as an inexpensive platform to develop emerging driver talent for Formula One. It is hoped this can be achieved within a budget of around €200,000 a car per season."

I think those ideas are sound! Especially the ones that take
dictatorial rights away from Bernie and give them to the teams.
But you are right about one thing. Bernie ain't gona' like it.

ioan

26th June 2008, 13:42

Max has gone way beyond being an embarrassment now to being the catalyst and driving force for conflict. I trully believe that his ego and pride is what's perpetuating this.

:rotflmao:

I say it's Bernie's greed that is perpetuating this situation.

ArrowsFA1

26th June 2008, 14:08

...there are clear indications that Max Mosley is pushing ahead with his strategy to improve his historical reputation by creating the sport as it ought to be - rather than the sport he had fashioned before the scandal began. Fixing the perceived wrongs of the sport helps to deflect attention away from his failings, while at the same time offering a better legacy.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20510.html

Dave B

26th June 2008, 14:18

ArrowsFA1

26th June 2008, 14:22

"The FIA will invite tenders for a new feeder series for Formula One," the governing body said.

"This championship, called Formula Two, would be launched in 2009 and used as an inexpensive platform to develop emerging driver talent for Formula One. It is hoped this can be achieved within a budget of around €200,000 a car per season."

I think those ideas are sound!
1) There is absolutely no need for another F1 feeder series when one already exists.
2) The costs are unrealistic
3) The time frame is unrealistic
4) It is a move motivated by politics, not motorsport
5) The FIA should concern themselves with regulating existing series efficiently and fairly, and not become promotors.

Max's F2 is not a sound idea at all.

What pisses me off about these political moves is that once again those of us who have an interest in motorsport will be the losers. Max and Bernie can tear ten tonnes of crap out of each other for all I care, but if in doing so the sport (F1 in particular because that's my main interest) is damaged then I'd rather go spend my money at events like the HSCC Historic Festival at Brands Hatch with F1, Sports Cars, F3, FFord and Saloon Cars all on the same bill on the same day.

Max has already damaged the sport by clinging on to power. He's now threatening to do more damage :down:

ArrowsFA1

26th June 2008, 14:26

Interesting talk from the Middle East (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20506.html). Interesting indeed. Max would have lost the vote but for the support of one
And look who is hosting a new GP on the 15th November 2009 :rolleyes:

ioan

26th June 2008, 15:12

1) There is absolutely no need for another F1 feeder series when one already exists.
2) The costs are unrealistic
3) The time frame is unrealistic
4) It is a move motivated by politics, not motorsport
5) The FIA should concern themselves with regulating existing series efficiently and fairly, and not become promotors.

Max's F2 is not a sound idea at all.

What pisses me off about these political moves is that once again those of us who have an interest in motorsport will be the losers. Max and Bernie can tear ten tonnes of crap out of each other for all I care, but if in doing so the sport (F1 in particular because that's my main interest) is damaged then I'd rather go spend my money at events like the HSCC Historic Festival at Brands Hatch with F1, Sports Cars, F3, FFord and Saloon Cars all on the same bill on the same day.

Max has already damaged the sport by clinging on to power. He's now threatening to do more damage :down:

You talk like Bernie! :down:

Max is coming up with very sound proposals for motorsport in this moment!
All Bernie is doing is to make life difficult for Max and thus for motorsport (especially F1) too. :\

ioan

26th June 2008, 15:13

And look who is hosting a new GP on the 15th November 2009 :rolleyes:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And even better is the FACT that Bernie is the one who is in charge with signing new F1 venues, not Max.

Did you miss this little detail?! :rotflmao:

ioan

26th June 2008, 15:16

Interesting talk from the Middle East (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20506.html). Interesting indeed. Max would have lost the vote but for the support of one man.

More here:
http://www.gulfnews.com/sport/Motor_Rally/10223096.html

Thanks for those links.

I completely agree wit the guy on t his part:

First let me tell you that this is a case of hypocrisy and not democracy.

trumperZ06

26th June 2008, 15:21

1) There is absolutely no need for another F1 feeder series when one already exists.
2) The costs are unrealistic
3) The time frame is unrealistic
4) It is a move motivated by politics, not motorsport
5) The FIA should concern themselves with regulating existing series efficiently and fairly, and not become promotors.

Max's F2 is not a sound idea at all.

What pisses me off about these political moves is that once again those of us who have an interest in motorsport will be the losers. Max and Bernie can tear ten tonnes of crap out of each other for all I care, but if in doing so the sport (F1 in particular because that's my main interest) is damaged then I'd rather go spend my money at events like the HSCC Historic Festival at Brands Hatch with F1, Sports Cars, F3, FFord and Saloon Cars all on the same bill on the same day.

Max has already damaged the sport by clinging on to power. He's now threatening to do more damage :down:

Yep.

;) Club racing & Historic car racing... is a much better way to spend your time @ the track.

:D For spectators, ALMS offers a better variety of cars, friendlier venue, and they run on the same tracks that you can also enjoy. Sebring & Road Atlanta for example.

:dozey: Formula One has become too political to really enjoy anymore.

:s mokin: Trumper

ArrowsFA1

26th June 2008, 15:28

Max is coming up with very sound proposals for motorsport in this moment!
Why now? Perhaps because he "is pushing ahead with his strategy to improve his historical reputation by creating the sport as it ought to be - rather than the sport he had fashioned..."

And even better is the FACT that Bernie is the one who is in charge with signing new F1 venues, not Max.
You're a little naïve ioan.
1) An F1 GP is not included on the calendar unless it is approved by the FIA. It is the FIA F1 World Championship after all.
2) Max and Bernie co-existed quite happily until recently, and had done for decades. The regulatory and commercial aspects of the sport were carved up between them.
3) The support of Mohammad Bin Sulayem appears to have been crucial to Max at the EGM.
4) A couple of weeks after the EGM Max & Bernie are at loggerheads and Abu Dhabi has a GP.

Knock-on

26th June 2008, 15:28

1) There is absolutely no need for another F1 feeder series when one already exists.
2) The costs are unrealistic
3) The time frame is unrealistic
4) It is a move motivated by politics, not motorsport
5) The FIA should concern themselves with regulating existing series efficiently and fairly, and not become promotors.

Max's F2 is not a sound idea at all.

What pisses me off about these political moves is that once again those of us who have an interest in motorsport will be the losers. Max and Bernie can tear ten tonnes of crap out of each other for all I care, but if in doing so the sport (F1 in particular because that's my main interest) is damaged then I'd rather go spend my money at events like the HSCC Historic Festival at Brands Hatch with F1, Sports Cars, F3, FFord and Saloon Cars all on the same bill on the same day.

Max has already damaged the sport by clinging on to power. He's now threatening to do more damage :down:

200k euro :laugh:

Thats about the budget for a Clio isn't it. Bloody joke.

Mind you, Clio drivers in F1 cars......

Now, that's an idea. Where's Tom Onslow-cole when you need him.

ioan

26th June 2008, 16:29

Why now? Perhaps because he "is pushing ahead with his strategy to improve his historical reputation by creating the sport as it ought to be - rather than the sport he had fashioned..."

The first part of that statement is true, the 2nd one is just a supposition.

You're a little naïve ioan.
1) An F1 GP is not included on the calendar unless it is approved by the FIA. It is the FIA F1 World Championship after all.

You are the naive one, but acknowledging that is a bit hard for you.
Bernie is the one whi picks the place and the FIA is the one who checks if the venue ot's up to the FIA standards (mainly safety ones).
It was Bernie who wanted a circuit in Abu Dhabi, not Max. :p :

2) Max and Bernie co-existed quite happily until recently, and had done for decades. The regulatory and commercial aspects of the sport were carved up between them.

Yep, while max was taking care of the sporting and technical side of the sport, Bernie was stuffing his pockets, It's well known.

3) The support of Mohammad Bin Sulayem appears to have been crucial to Max at the EGM.

And the point being?! :rolleyes:
There is no point, really. as you have witnessed some people were against Mosley (notably Bernie Ecclestone, the so called "friend") and the others were for him?! What's the catch in your reasoning?

4) A couple of weeks after the EGM Max & Bernie are at loggerheads and Abu Dhabi has a GP.

As it it's big news?! The GP was already agreed one year ago. And work on it's structure is well underway. I have already seen it's plans and done some computation of some metallic structures that will be used there. It's not like max decided to thank his middle east supporters and as recognition gave the a F1 GP!

You are really making me :laugh: !

ioan

26th June 2008, 16:30

200k euro :laugh:

Thats about the budget for a Clio isn't it. Bloody joke.

Mind you, Clio drivers in F1 cars......

Now, that's an idea. Where's Tom Onslow-cole when you need him.

What a contribution to the thread!

The ones that are skinning Max for not making motorsport affordable are now in arms with him because it might get too affordable! :rotflamo:

Make up your mind people! :p :

Bagwan

26th June 2008, 16:43

Mohammed is pretty happy with himself .

If he bribed the member groups , then there is a problem .
If he merely talked sense to them , then we have proper democratic process .
I've not seen the bribery allegations all over the front pages , so perhaps we should figure there was no bribery .

Tazio

26th June 2008, 16:51

ArrowsFA1

27th June 2008, 08:23

Yep, while max was taking care of the sporting and technical side of the sport, Bernie was stuffing his pockets, It's well known.

In 2004 there was certainly one great change in Mosley’s life when he finally became independently wealthy. It is believed he received a gratis payment from Bernie Ecclestone of US$300 million as a token of his appreciation. The influx of money signalled a move to the tax haven of Monaco. In England he would have paid 40 per cent tax on the windfall; in Monaco nothing. So in March 2004 Mosley made the decision to relocate there from London. But instead of coming clean and saying he was leaving England for tax reasons, he concocted the most amazing (and untrue) story: he claimed to have been advised that a fatal accident in a race event under FIA jurisdiction within the European Union could result in his arrest. It followed the introduction of a new European arrest warrant. Mosley said: “I have been advised that it would be prudent to relocate outside EU jurisdiction.” It was the most amazing nonsense, swallowed by just about everyone. Of course it would have been embarrassing should Ecclestone’s payment to him have become public.
http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm

You are really making me :laugh: !
Happy to oblige, but laughing while sticking your head in the sand is not advisable :p

ioan

27th June 2008, 08:33

You're comparing a supposed 300 millions with sure billions, made during the same period.
It's like saying that a guy on the minimum wage is filthy rich because he managed to earn a few millions during his whole life.

ArrowsFA1

27th June 2008, 08:40

You're comparing a supposed 300 millions with sure billions, made during the same period.
No, not comparing, just illustrating the point that, contrary to your view, Bernie was not the only one "stuffing his pockets" while supposedly Max was working so hard, unpaid, for the good of the sport.

Knock-on

27th June 2008, 10:00

What a contribution to the thread!

The ones that are skinning Max for not making motorsport affordable are now in arms with him because it might get too affordable! :rotflamo:

Make up your mind people! :p :

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to run posts past you to ensure the thread was maintained to your standards.

However, I will answer your post?

You are, in fact, completely wrong as per normal. The embarrassing frequency of having to demonstrate this is becoming quite boring.

Where have I "skinned" Max for making the sport too expensive? I have always believed that the Sport will spend what is availiable to it. I believe trying to restrict budgets will be wholly innefective and lead to the most sucessfull teams being the ones that manage to manipulate and break the fiscal rules.

So, that is completely the opposite of what you have claimed although you will never acknowledge it ( yet again ) :rolleyes:

I also implied that 200k euro is not enough money to run an effective international team in any series.

Can you tell me how many people are involved in the smallest GP2 teams and how much it costs to transport, feed and house them for a season.

Forget about the actual car, race entry, tyres, fuel, pay etc. Just the logistics has blown the budget :laugh:

SGWilko

27th June 2008, 10:06

The first part of that statement is true, the 2nd one is just a supposition.

The 2nd one is currently written in F1 history FFS! An F1 littered with mixed messages and poor rule making/decisions by the FIA president.

C'mon, we don't all have our heads buried in the sand y'know! ;)

ArrowsFA1

27th June 2008, 11:23

Max Mosley was warned by Bernie Ecclestone that people had been hired to discredit him two months before his private life was exposed, it was claimed today.

Dean Attew, an intelligence consultant who formerly worked for Ecclestone and also advised Mosley, revealed that he was contacted early this year by people who wanted Mosley removed from office.

"It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68669

Valve Bounce

27th June 2008, 13:37

Yeah! I read that, and Bernie reckoned that they would not get anything on Max because Max is simply boring.

Tazio

27th June 2008, 13:58

Originally Posted by
Max Mosley was warned by Bernie Ecclestone that people had been hired to discredit him two months before his private life was exposed, it was claimed today.

Dean Attew, an intelligence consultant who formerly worked for Ecclestone and also advised Mosley, revealed that he was contacted early this year by people who wanted Mosley removed from office.

"It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68669

Evidently Max has a pretty good handle on his vulnerabilitity!

He took this failed coup head on, and NOTHING has changed

in the pecking order at the FIA. He is still calling the shots!

Knock-on

27th June 2008, 14:07

Originally Posted by
Max Mosley was warned by Bernie Ecclestone that people had been hired to discredit him two months before his private life was exposed, it was claimed today.

Dean Attew, an intelligence consultant who formerly worked for Ecclestone and also advised Mosley, revealed that he was contacted early this year by people who wanted Mosley removed from office.

"It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."

Evidently Max has a pretty good handle on his vulnerabilitity!

He took this fail coup head on, and NOTHING has changed

in the pecking order at the FIA. He is still calling the shots!

I'm afraid you're correct. Max is untouchable and without accountability. The FIA has become his empire and if he wants to throw his toys out the prsam, as is happening, there is nothing to stop him.

He has grown from President to Dictator :(

Tazio

27th June 2008, 14:16

I'm afraid you're correct. Max is untouchable and without accountability. The FIA has become his empire and if he wants to throw his toys out the prsam, as is happening, there is nothing to stop him.

He has grown from President to Dictator :( A little off subject, but I see that expression quite often on this forum. What is this words meaning "Pram"
Thanks in advance
V

Knock-on

27th June 2008, 15:37

A little off subject, but I see that expression quite often on this forum. What is this words meaning "Pram"
Thanks in advance
V

If I could spell it correctly :)

Pram is short for Perambulator, a childs pushchair. Chucking your toys out means having a tantrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_transport

Very popular make is Maclaren :D

markabilly

28th June 2008, 06:06

Originally Posted by
Max Mosley was warned by Bernie Ecclestone that people had been hired to discredit him two months before his private life was exposed, it was claimed today.

Dean Attew, an intelligence consultant who formerly worked for Ecclestone and also advised Mosley, revealed that he was contacted early this year by people who wanted Mosley removed from office.

"It was clear that Max disregarded the advice and failed to realise his vulnerability. The issue for me was his total disregard for genuine advice from individuals that he knew had his best interests at heart."

!

And I always believe everything that benie and his buds say, just like I believe maX, Ron Dennis, Lewis "nothing can break me" Hamilton......yada yada :beer:

ioan

28th June 2008, 13:44

markabilly

28th June 2008, 14:47

So it has been said, countries get the kind of government they deserve...
bottom line is that the Fia has max because it deserves max
F1 has bernei for the same reason

i deserve something better, but deserving got nothing to do with it

ArrowsFA1

30th June 2008, 08:26

You can say the same about the FOM and Bernie
There are big differences between the organisation run by Max, and the one run by Bernie.

SGWilko

30th June 2008, 11:35

You can say the same about the FOM and Bernie, on the economical side! Still you lot chose to idolize bernie while you hate Max.

Who on this forum idolizes Bernie? :confused:

I think Max is jealous of BCE - Max used to be an F1 or F2 driver, but failed, he also (like BCE) was a team owner, but failed where Bernie succeeded.

Bernie has been known to dig deep and bail out failing teams, what does Max do? Oh yes, he is forever meddling with the rules that costs the teams fortunes.

Then, he has the audacity to say he wants to cut costs, while introducing KERS, but to his set of criteria, that makes it rather inneficient!?!?!?!?

All we need now, is a shot at an F1 track where we see Max casually strolling across in front of a rapidly approaching car....

...then the FIA president will have truly come full circle! ;)

Knock-on

30th June 2008, 16:21

I'm afraid you're correct. Max is untouchable and without accountability. The FIA has become his empire and if he wants to throw his toys out the prsam, as is happening, there is nothing to stop him.

He has grown from President to Dictator :(

You can say the same about the FOM and Bernie, on the economical side! Still you lot chose to idolize bernie while you hate Max.

When you say "you could" I assume you are talking about yourself and not me?

If not, please back up your post with some facts where "us lot" (which implies you are referring to me) idolize Bernie. If not, a simple apology and admit you were talking rubbish again will suffice ;)

Lastly, if you want to keep claiming Bernie is such a bad person, why not start a thread about him and let this one get back on track :p :

markabilly

5th July 2008, 20:29

markabilly

5th July 2008, 21:18

So Does Mosley knows identity of his enemies?

Is not the trial on NTOW going to start on July 7th?

I am curious why there has not been depositions already taken in the case that would have uncovered all the rest to be uncovered, but I am unfamiliar with how the pretrial process works in Britiain as to what you can get from the other side before a trial, so what gives? Will there be some big breaks in news that will make others very unhappy or what, will it be more mud dumped on F1 and racing? Seems to me we would all be better off without this but there is where we are headed so it seems
OTOH, maybe not, if this article has any basis:

The BBC TV Panorama programme had been very critical of the 15-year commercial rights deal Mosley had done with Ecclestone. When it interviewed Mosley for the programme, the FIA president was very surprised by the interviewer, Mark Killick’s knowledge of the secret agreements. In a famous exchange on television, Killick asked Mosley whether he was “trying to defend the indefensible”. Quick as a flash Mosley told him “quite the reverse, you’re attacking the unattackable”.
After the programme aired, Mosley told Terry Lovell: “I wanted to sue, but Bernie said it wasn’t worth it.” For whatever reasons Mosley didn’t sue. In reality he couldn’t take the chance of all these secret agreements being brought out into the open.
All in all the FIA lost US$1.7 billion from 1992 to 2007. One observer says: “Only a halfwit with no financial knowledge would have signed those three deals. They handed Ecclestone and McNally nearly US$2 billion of the FIA’s cash."
Mosley was never open and truthful about any of these deals and had it not been for the BBC journalists from Panorama they would never have become publicly known.
Despite all this largesse towards Ecclestone, Mosley was re-elected with ease in the FIA presidency elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005.
His re-election gave him confidence to push the boundaries of proprietary

http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm

Suppose that the NOTW starts digging into that stuff during the trial, as after all, max says his privacy is violated, damaging his image and good standing.....then why should this info not be admissible as well at a minnimu on the question of max's character and his image?

Also explains that while max and Benrie are not good friends right now, it is really meaningless when all things are considered, that they will "work things out for the good of their revenue" But the arrgoance of those deals may well explain the arrogance that lead to the "photos and videos" as well as his arrogant unwillingness to walk away.......

Odd that max 's job officially pays nothing.......but does it really?

Tazio

5th July 2008, 23:09

One mans
"arrogant unwillingness" is another mans
ardent stick-to-it-tiveness!
As any good lawyer would be quick to point out! :p :
(not that it has anything to do with this civil case)

markabilly

6th July 2008, 00:57

One mans
"arrogant unwillingness" is another mans
ardent stick-to-it-tiveness!
As any good lawyer would be quick to point out! :p :
(not that it has anything to do with this civil case)

For me it was something of a question as to exactly how the relationship between Bernie and max worked, and adament or "ardent stick to it" nature of Max, and how he could survive and just how he could roll through this much bad stuff like Bill Clinton rolled through the "I never had sex with that woman, I smoked but never inhaled" episodes with such impunity. The article is not that well written as it lacks structure and readability for my taste, but the premises provide some insight to the extent the underlying facts be true.

And just how much of this might leak out on this upcoming trial that max is so adament in his pursuit--if i were defending this case, my attack would be to aim where it would hurt the most, his true character of selling himself and buying others, and damages can not be had for damaging that which was already corrupted and damaged.

Hence he would have been better off with even people like me saying it was wrong to be invading his privacy, slipping through the noose with that vote, rather than to be filing suit and having his character to be factually shown to be unworthy in general public---all to keep a job that allegedly does not pay.

Tazio

6th July 2008, 02:28

damages can not be had for damaging that which was already corrupted and damaged.
There may be an attempt to discredit Max. Like you, I don't know British Civil Law.
However, In the U.S.of A. that information would not be specific enough to this case.
You may be the biggest crook in the world, but that is irrelevant to damages for invasion of privacy.
It may affect the amount of the settlement, but thats not what Max is after!
In fact I believe The question that you and everyone else wants answered is:
Is there enough dirt to stop this corporally whacked Barrister from following through with this trial,
and specifcally what is it? If there is, than I guess we won't get the specifics
Nothing would surprise me at this point however!

markabilly

6th July 2008, 05:19

There may be an attempt to discredit Max. Like you, I don't know British Civil Law.
However, In the U.S.of A. that information would not be specific enough to this case.
You may be the biggest crook in the world, but that is irrelevant to damages for invasion of privacy.
It may affect the amount of the settlement, but thats not what Max is after!
In fact I believe The question that you and everyone else wants answered is:
Is there enough dirt to stop this corporally whacked Barrister from following through with this trial,
and specifcally what is it? If there is, than I guess we won't get the specifics
Nothing would surprise me at this point however!

That "You may be the biggest crook in the world, but that is irrelevant to damages for invasion of privacy." would depend on what damages are available under brit law, for example is it mental anquish for being held up to public riducule, public disclosure of embarrassing private information or publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public. He seems to be saying that he did not do any nazi stuff, he was presented in a false light so he alleges?

That would seem to open up all sorts of doors, would it not?.

But what is the correct "light" for comparing the before and after?

Further such evidence might well be available for impeachment, and in the good old USA, such evidence comes in all the time, often with a limiting instruction that the jury only consider the fact that you are a crook, but that merely being a crook does not mean you were not damaged. Well, the judge can limit it all he wants but damage done cause the evidence is now in that the victim is not so innocent

Plus it might well be admissible on his vague allegations of some sort of set up or entrapment, as to his state of mind. You did it because you been getting away with so much other stuff, you have lost the fear of getting caught

Hard to argue damages, when he never lost his job.....

But as you say, "Is there enough dirt to stop this corporally whacked Barrister from following through with this trial,
and specifcally what is it? If there is, than I guess we won't get the specifics
Nothing would surprise me at this point however!",, Well if Max is going to prove anything as to damages and so forth, he will have to testify, and if the proper predicate be laid, then all sorts of stuff can leak in during cross exam.

OTOH, perhaps we shall also learn the person who may have put the dogs on old Max's trail, resulting in all of this. Was it some PI firm hired by Mac, or was it bern, or was it ?????????? Whoever it is, will get a big black eye, and has helped pull the sport into disrepute over some private shenigans that should have had nothing to do with the public

Tazio

6th July 2008, 12:25

Fair enough! Let's see how it plays out. Then I'll get back to you!

Tazio

8th July 2008, 16:04

That "You may be the biggest crook in the world, but that is irrelevant to damages for invasion of privacy." would depend on what damages are available under brit law, for example is it mental anquish for being held up to public riducule, public disclosure of embarrassing private information or publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public. He seems to be saying that he did not do any nazi stuff, he was presented in a false light so he alleges?

That would seem to open up all sorts of doors, would it not?.

But what is the correct "light" for comparing the before and after?

Further such evidence might well be available for impeachment, and in the good old USA, such evidence comes in all the time, often with a limiting instruction that the jury only consider the fact that you are a crook, but that merely being a crook does not mean you were not damaged. Well, the judge can limit it all he wants but damage done cause the evidence is now in that the victim is not so innocent

Plus it might well be admissible on his vague allegations of some sort of set up or entrapment, as to his state of mind. You did it because you been getting away with so much other stuff, you have lost the fear of getting caught

Hard to argue damages, when he never lost his job.....

But as you say, "Is there enough dirt to stop this corporally whacked Barrister from following through with this trial,
and specifcally what is it? If there is, than I guess we won't get the specifics
Nothing would surprise me at this point however!",, Well if Max is going to prove anything as to damages and so forth, he will have to testify, and if the proper predicate be laid, then all sorts of stuff can leak in during cross exam.

OTOH, perhaps we shall also learn the person who may have put the dogs on old Max's trail, resulting in all of this. Was it some PI firm hired by Mac, or was it bern, or was it ?????????? Whoever it is, will get a big black eye, and has helped pull the sport into disrepute over some private shenigans that should have had nothing to do with the publicAlrighty then! :p : The trial is under way, and is going the way these things generally do. Max is pressing on!( no surprise to me) Although the defense hasn't had a chance to present it's side, or cross examine these participants. The evidence looks damning to this impartial observer! I'm stll waiting

"We were constantly laughing and we enjoy what we do – it's like children playing cowboys and Indians. It's adults playing, having fun," Woman A said.

"Afterwards, it's the best feeling in the world. It's a natural high and the endorphins kick in whether you are giving it or receiving it. It's as if you've just run a marathon."

Woman A, who is to face cross-examination this afternoon, said there was never any suggestion of a Nazi theme.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

She said she was shocked that the article appeared in the News of the World and that Woman E had been the informant.

Woman B's voice cracked and she started crying as she said: "I was horrified, I didn't believe anyone in the scene would do something like that. One thing we always try is to make sure everything remains private."

She added that the role play had a prison setting rather than a military one and the laughter on the video showed no one was taking it too seriously.

"Grotesque? I don't think so," Woman B told the court.

"It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it's something I enjoy in the privacy of my own space.

"Brutal? Certainly not. We never get any permanent markings or anything like that."

Woman D said she was not always paid for attending Mosley's parties, adding that she was not "financially dependent" on Mosley or men like him, since she was completing a PhD and received a tax-free stipend of £14,000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/08/privacy.newsoftheworld?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

btw this is a court transcript, in case someone feels the need to attack the source.

Mark your on the ropes on this one, taking a standing 8 count! :D

Tazio

8th July 2008, 18:21

Oh my word! :eek: This does not bode well for the NoW!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myler told the court the News of the World would consider it justifiable to film Mosley having an S&M sex orgy with five prostitutes even if there had not been the alleged Nazi dimension.

He accepted that it was an invasion of privacy to secretly film someone having sex, adding that it had happened to him personally and he had not liked it, but said it was justified in a matter of great public interest."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got four of the five women, plus Max testifying that not only was it not a N@zi theme, but considered it to be just a harmless night of getting their rocks off.

I am now prepared to take sig bets on the disposition of this case!

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 08:37

At least Max has "accepted that, as a trustee of the FIA, he had a formal duty to avoid any appearance of improper behaviour."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4289840.ece

MAX_THRUST

9th July 2008, 10:03

Nazi conotations or not this whole court case is bad for the FIA and by its association to F1 can't be good.

Max has dragged this out for his family and the FIA, and has shown no consideration to others but himself. Thats is what sickens me the most about this. When is he going to do the right thing and just leave the public eye and his job with the news of the world, then he can carry on doing what the hell he likes......

We don't need this associated to any sport. Its bad enough he got caught, whats worse is his fight to make it seem less than it was.....and it was not good for his reputation or any one associated with him. Wish he would do the decent thing and leave.

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 10:57

Max has dragged this out for his family and the FIA, and has shown no consideration to others but himself. Thats is what sickens me the most about this. When is he going to do the right thing and just leave the public eye and his job with the news of the world, then he can carry on doing what the hell he likes......
I do recall someone saying Max relishes conflict. As a former barrister it seems he is relishing this court case rather than considering the wider implications.

ioan

9th July 2008, 12:43

I do recall someone saying Max relishes conflict. As a former barrister it seems he is relishing this court case rather than considering the wider implications.

I suppose that if someone publicized your sexual life as having Nazi connotations you would rather go and hide instead of trying to clear your name and uphold your reputation?! :rolleyes:

Everyone talks from the point of view of someone who isn't touched by the events.
Try and put yourself in his position, let's see what you would do.

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 13:09

I suppose that if someone publicized your sexual life as having Nazi connotations you would rather go and hide instead of trying to clear your name and uphold your reputation?! :rolleyes:

Everyone talks from the point of view of someone who isn't touched by the events.
Try and put yourself in his position, let's see what you would do.
I have never argued that Max does not have the right to defend himself in court.

SGWilko

9th July 2008, 13:16

ioan

9th July 2008, 13:18

ioan

9th July 2008, 13:20

I have never argued that Max does not have the right to defend himself in court.

Than what did you mean with this:

he is relishing this court case rather than considering the wider implications.

SGWilko

9th July 2008, 13:26

Yes I think it's right to hide dirty secrets from your partner, and especially from the kids.
Can you challenge my opinion in any way?! I doubt it.

Shame on you Ioan!

It is very wrong, for the very reasons Max is experiencing now - humiliation shame and depravation.

Trust, is a wonderful thing. There can be none in that family now. How does his wife now feel. Inadequate? Used? Violated perhaps?

What a horrid little man Max has turned out to be.

I tell you, I'm not saying my dung don't hum, but there are no skeletons in my closet.

I was dragged up proper me. Was taught respect, manners and integrity.

I hope that man loses his case.

NB - As for your opinion, can I refer you to Voltaire?

9th July 2008, 13:27

I do recall someone saying Max relishes conflict. As a former barrister it seems he is relishing this court case rather than considering the wider implications.

Thank god you're not a lawyer.

Knock-on

9th July 2008, 14:43

Than what did you mean with this:

Arrows said that Max seems to be relishing the case rather than the implications.

How does this in any way trasnslate to Arrows even implying that Max doesn't have the right to defend himself.

:confused:

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 15:22

Clearly, the Max Mrs Mosely sees before her now aint the guy she married!

Does ANYONE think it right to hide dirty secrets from your wife/partner? And his Kids! If he feels hard done by because this came out, there is a real simple rule of thumb...

Dont fecking do it in the first place! Numpty!

What about the Aryan race then? Oh, no, didn't hear or remember that guvn'or. How frightfully convenient is that then?

WHo has all the integrity now then.

Plus the £35k for the hooker (they are not hookers! :laugh :) and the all expenses trips to Monaco.

All this appropriate behaviour of the FIA president is it?

Off with his knackers I say! :D

Good thing you're not a judge .

How the hell do you know what Mrs. Mosely thinks ?
How would you know if this was news to her at all ?
How would you know whether she condones this activity or not ?

You assume .

You know Max is still married , don't you ?
You also know Max hasn't denied anything but that there was no Nazi connotation , don't you ?

You understand that this was clearly a sting , don't you ?

I must note it is ironic for you to use the phrase " rule of thumb" , when speaking about this affair , as some note the origin of the saying as being the maximum thickness of the stick with which you are allowed to beat your wife . Whilst it may not be the true etomology of the phase , it is very well known .

Mrs. Mosely , for all you or I know , might be into the same things .

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 15:22

Than what did you mean with this:
ioan, what you've quoted has nothing to do with me denying Max the right to defend himself.

Thank god you're not a lawyer.
Oh I dunno...might be a bit of a larf :laugh: :laugh:

9th July 2008, 15:27

Arrows said that Max seems to be relishing the case rather than the implications.

How does this in any way trasnslate to Arrows even implying that Max doesn't have the right to defend himself.

:confused:

Because, the way I read it, Arrows seems to think that the 'implications' are more important than the right to defend yourself.

If that were the case, it would be impossible for anybody in any position of authority to ever try to clear their name. That would lead to easy blackmail and false accusations aimed solely at destroying lives.

Welcome to Zimbabwe, Mr Arrows.

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 15:37

ioan, what you've quoted has nothing to do with me denying Max the right to defend himself.

Oh I dunno...might be a bit of a larf :laugh: :laugh:

It does seem to imply that he shouldn't defend himself , in light of those "wider implications" , or that the decision to do so is corrupt in some way because of it's motivation .
Surely the motivation behind this sting is more corrupt than the glee that one might feel at getting one back on dirty opponents such as these foul swine .

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 15:41

Because, the way I read it, Arrows seems to think that the 'implications' are more important than the right to defend yourself.
Which would be an entirely incorrect assumption.

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 15:45

Which would be an entirely incorrect assumption.

Try , poor wording , since that's how I read it as well .

9th July 2008, 15:46

Which would be an entirely incorrect assumption.

Try , poor wording , since that's how I read it as well .

Hey Bagwan, at least Arrows now knows how things can be misinterpreted.

Just like a certain Mr Mosley.

Knock-on

9th July 2008, 15:48

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 15:59

It's funny how "I have never argued that Max does not have the right to defend himself in court" can be somehow not be clear.

Funny, but somehow not suprising.

Knock-on

9th July 2008, 16:02

Hey Bagwan, at least Arrows now knows how things can be misinterpreted.

Just like a certain Mr Mosley.

People can draw the wrong conclusions. I didn't take Arrows's words to in any way suggest Max hasn't the right to defend himself in a court of Law but others may have misinterpreted that.

Similarly, the NotW recorded Max in a Prisoner Role Play, involving German Military regalia and speaking in German and interpreted that as having a Nazi theme. In this they may too be mistaken and will be found out in the ongoing Court case but of course, they may not ;)

trumperZ06

9th July 2008, 16:04

Yes I think it's right to hide dirty secrets from your partner, and especially from the kids.
Can you challenge my opinion in any way?! I doubt it.

:p : Hhmmmm.... What a Shame.

:rolleyes: Thanks for revealing your true character for the World to see !!!

trumperZ06

9th July 2008, 16:11

;) Not being privy to the English Press... I'm not sure how much creditbility the Telegraph has...

but it does offer an interesting article on Max's escapades.

"Max Molsey & the Euston 40"...

questioning Max's involvement & financial interest in:

"event shows in a tawdy sex den" !!!

9th July 2008, 16:22

It's funny how "I have never argued that Max does not have the right to defend himself in court" can be somehow not be clear.

Funny, but somehow not suprising.

Like I said, thank god your not a lawyer.

Whilst you haven't specifically stated that Mosley should not have his day in court, you do constantly refer to the 'wider implications' of his court action and seem to place more emphasis upon this aspect of the saga than on Mosley's indisputable right to try to clear his name.

That is not how justice works nor should it ever be and is neither funny nor, sadly, surprising.

SGWilko

9th July 2008, 16:40

Good thing you're not a judge .

How the hell do you know what Mrs. Mosely thinks ?
How would you know if this was news to her at all ?
How would you know whether she condones this activity or not ?

You assume .

You know Max is still married , don't you ?
You also know Max hasn't denied anything but that there was no Nazi connotation , don't you ?

You understand that this was clearly a sting , don't you ?

I must note it is ironic for you to use the phrase " rule of thumb" , when speaking about this affair , as some note the origin of the saying as being the maximum thickness of the stick with which you are allowed to beat your wife . Whilst it may not be the true etomology of the phase , it is very well known .

Mrs. Mosely , for all you or I know , might be into the same things .

Eerrrrrmmmmm. Perhaps you should read what has been happening in the court case, you will read that Max has admitted he had successfully kept knowledge of his 'antics' from 'her indoors' and the 'ankle biters'.

We also know from other Maxisms that he said 'the missus was not best pleased'.

I know Max is still married. Can't think what it is about the multi millionaire that she sees in him though! ;)

He has denied only the Nazi connotations, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Woman 'D' said that the PhD student who blurted out about the Aryan race, did so (and this is the best bit) on the spur of the moment, not knowing its meaning! :rotflmao:

I have assumed very little Baggy, chosing to use quotes from the case in court.

HTH

Tazio

9th July 2008, 16:43

I do recall someone saying Max relishes conflict. As a former barrister it seems he is relishing this court case Which has nothing to do with the facts in this case!
rather than considering the wider implications. The wider implications are to quote Tamb':

"If that were the case, it would be impossible for anybody in any position of authority to ever try to clear their name. That would lead to easy blackmail and false accusations aimed solely at destroying lives."

The wider implications you refer to have only served to sell more tabloids!
Motor racing is no worse off than it was before this event!
Justice will be meted out. The sad thing is that the tabloids are going to make the money
that this "situation" has produced.
I hope it sets a precedent to deter these slimeballs from pulling this cr@p in the future!

SGWilko

9th July 2008, 16:50

The wider implications are

.....showing Max in not a very good light....

Go read this then.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sions.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2270241/Max-Mosley-'spoke-German-to-sound-dominant'-during-sex-sessions.html)

:eek:

You'll have to cut'n'paste that link - sorry.

ArrowsFA1

9th July 2008, 16:51

Whilst you haven't specifically stated that Mosley should not have his day in court...
Max should have his day in court but in my view (as I have said before) he should be there as a private citizen, not FIA President.

...you do constantly refer to the 'wider implications' of his court action and seem to place more emphasis upon this aspect of the saga than on Mosley's indisputable right to try to clear his name.
I refer to the wider implications of this whole situation (not just the court case) simply because they impact on motorsport, and F1 in particular, and this is the F1 forum for F1-related discussion.

SGWilko

9th July 2008, 16:59

Eerrrrrmmmmm. Perhaps you should read what has been happening in the court case, you will read that Max has admitted he had successfully kept knowledge of his 'antics' from 'her indoors' and the 'ankle biters'.

We also know from other Maxisms that he said 'the missus was not best pleased'.

I know Max is still married. Can't think what it is about the multi millionaire that she sees in him though! ;)

He has denied only the Nazi connotations, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Woman 'D' said that the PhD student who blurted out about the Aryan race, did so (and this is the best bit) on the spur of the moment, not knowing its meaning! :rotflmao:

I have assumed very little Baggy, chosing to use quotes from the case in court.

HTH

To correct my mistake - Woman D is the PhD student.

Bag o' sh!te! :laugh:

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 17:22

Sorry Baggy but must object to the "sting" part.

A sting, in my opinion, relates to someone setting up a situation.

As far as I'm aware, Max instigated this little party entirely of his own volition and paid Ladies for indulging in sexual services.

Sorry , Knocky , but it was MI5 that used the word first .
They'd know what it means , don't you think ?

The sting refers to the plan to get pictures of the affair .

As has been implied in the excerpts of quotes from the girls , it was perhaps a regular thing , not a one-off .
Getting pictures in the news was a set-up .

Tazio

9th July 2008, 17:33

.....showing Max in not a very good light....

Go read this then.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... sions.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2270241/Max-Mosley-'spoke-German-to-sound-dominant'-during-sex-sessions.html)

:eek:

You'll have to cut'n'paste that link - sorry.

Not sure where your going with that old bean
Just becaure Max's hobby isn't R.C. boat racing
doesn't justify NoW's activity here.
And it wouldn't enhance Max's ability to do his job.

I await the outcome with quiet optimism!
I believe that Great Britain is not a Facist State.
Yet!

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 17:37

To correct my mistake - Woman D is the PhD student.

Bag o' sh!te! :laugh:

Should I report this , or do you wish to apologise ?

Knock-on

9th July 2008, 17:49

Sorry , Knocky , but it was MI5 that used the word first .
They'd know what it means , don't you think ?

The sting refers to the plan to get pictures of the affair .

As has been implied in the excerpts of quotes from the girls , it was perhaps a regular thing , not a one-off .
Getting pictures in the news was a set-up .

Well, I can't be responsible for MI5 :D

I think the whole debarcle is quite amusing really.

The crux of the matter is that Max has been caught with his pants down engaging in conduct that many people find quite depraved. Don't know that I subscribe to that view as I would like nothing more than to give Max a sound thrashing but I suggest that a lot of people find his behavour quite weird.

However, as long as he hurts nobody, commit a criminal act and keeps it behind closed doors, it doesn't concern me. Cheating on his wife and engaging prostitutes for S&M sessions is a personal morality issue that Max can accept. But again, it's his and his familys personal business. I would go as far as to argue that dressing up as some sort of Nazi is neither here nor there. Again, it was behind closed doors and up to him to reason with his concience.

Was it a invasion of privacy for the NotW to run this story? I would suggest it was but that's what Newspapers do. They don't sell much copy by running a Headline "Max Molesy happily married and nothing to report"!

Thing is, it's not behind closed doors now. If I was Max, I would have let it blow over but he's obviously not so we get to see the whole issue drawn out through the courts.

Bagwan

9th July 2008, 17:57

Well, I can't be responsible for MI5 :D

I think the whole debarcle is quite amusing really.

The crux of the matter is that Max has been caught with his pants down engaging in conduct that many people find quite depraved. Don't know that I subscribe to that view as I would like nothing more than to give Max a sound thrashing but I suggest that a lot of people find his behavour quite weird.

However, as long as he hurts nobody, commit a criminal act and keeps it behind closed doors, it doesn't concern me. Cheating on his wife and engaging prostitutes for S&M sessions is a personal morality issue that Max can accept. But again, it's his and his familys personal business. I would go as far as to argue that dressing up as some sort of Nazi is neither here nor there. Again, it was behind closed doors and up to him to reason with his concience.

Was it a invasion of privacy for the NotW to run this story? I would suggest it was but that's what Newspapers do. They don't sell much copy by running a Headline "Max Molesy happily married and nothing to report"!

Thing is, it's not behind closed doors now. If I was Max, I would have let it blow over but he's obviously not so we get to see the whole issue drawn out through the courts.

I hear you , knock .
It's 45 of 48 years married , doing things behind the wife's back .

It's more damage than anyone on the board here can imagine .

The NOTW saw to it that it was not behind closed doors .
The suit is all he could do .

Tazio

9th July 2008, 18:49

Well, I can't be responsible for MI5 :D

I think the whole debarcle is quite amusing really.

The crux of the matter is that Max has been caught with his pants down engaging in conduct that many people find quite depraved. Don't know that I subscribe to that view as I would like nothing more than to give Max a sound thrashing but I suggest that a lot of people find his behavour quite weird.

However, as long as he hurts nobody, commit a criminal act and keeps it behind closed doors, it doesn't concern me. Cheating on his wife and engaging prostitutes for S&M sessions is a personal morality issue that Max can accept. But again, it's his and his familys personal business. I would go as far as to argue that dressing up as some sort of Nazi is neither here nor there. Again, it was behind closed doors and up to him to reason with his concience.

Was it a invasion of privacy for the NotW to run this story? I would suggest it was but that's what Newspapers do. They don't sell much copy by running a Headline "Max Molesy happily married and nothing to report"!

Thing is, it's not behind closed doors now. If I was Max, I would have let it blow over but he's obviously not so we get to see the whole issue drawn out through the courts.Great post Knock' I agree with it, with one small exception.
I think a precedent needs to be set as to how far these "Newspapers" can go.
It's an issue all race fans would like to see go away. Max has a chance to contribute to setting the boundry.
He has nothing more to lose, and citizens private lives have much to gain!