Mosley won't stand for another term

[ioan]

Good new for the NOTW fans! :D



"There are a large number of people in the FIA who are saying that I must run again in 2009," said Mosley this week as part of an interview with this week's Autosport.

"I don't want to, because to be very, very honest, I want to stop going to work every day. It is that thing that every morning you cannot believe how much work there is to do.

"A lot of people with ambitions think all you do is put on a blazer and an armband and you are president of the FIA. You can do it like that, but then you are not the person in control - it is the secretary general. So if you want to have any influence, you have to do an awful lot of work."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69515

He also decided to concentrate for the rest of his term on making F1 greener and cheaper!



He also said that he hopes F1 can move towards a raft of cost cuts over the next few years, which will also help improve the environmental credentials of the sport.

He wants to free up drive train development - in exchange for manufacturers supplying independent teams free of charge.

"It does need a real reduction in cost," he said. "It needs the independent teams to be able to operate profitably and if they can't operate profitably they won't operate at all eventually because they have to run at a profit.

"At the moment, if you're an independent team like Toro Rosso or Force India, you can't run at a profit – you depend on a billionaire to subsidise you. And there just aren't enough billionaires around to subsidise. So that problem has got to be solved.

"One of the suggestions being made is the first thing you do is move the development area essentially into the drivetrain so that you're looking at the new technologies in the drivetrain, things like KERS, things like turbo generators, heat recovery, all those sort of things which are relevant to the road."


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69514

Cheers to that!

[Knock-on]

Well, he's hardly going to be out there handleing diplomatic duties and meeting heads of Government etc.

The only thing he can do is within the FIA where his cronies support his will. Everyone else thinks he's a bit of a laughing stock.

[gloomyDAY]

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of NOTW and still wanted Max to be abdicated from his throne prior to all of this stupidity. Now if I say something against Mosley, which is often, I'm accused of being in cahoots with some obnoxious tabloid. Frankly, Max can nail all the prostitutes in the world and it won't change a thing as to my feelings about this old goat.

A lot of you seem to forget that the FIA does not only oversee F1. The WRC has been suffering for years under Max's control. Granted this also has a lot to do with the rights holder David Richards. Both of these chaps share equal responsibilty for the utter shambles of the WRC. You think it's hard to make a profit in F1 Max? Try the WRC...

[Knock-on]

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of NOTW and still wanted Max to be abdicated from his throne prior to all of this stupidity. Now if I say something against Mosley, which is often, I'm accused of being in cahoots with some obnoxious tabloid. Frankly, Max can nail all the prostitutes in the world and it won't change a thing as to my feelings about this old goat.

A lot of you seem to forget that the FIA does not only oversee F1. The WRC has been suffering for years under Max's control. Granted this also has a lot to do with the rights holder David Richards. Both of these chaps share equal responsibilty for the utter shambles of the WRC. You think it's hard to make a profit in F1 Max? Try the WRC...

Like you, I can't stand the NotW and think Max is damaging for Motorsport based on what he has done to F1. Things like the 300million bribe for gifting the rights to bernie and fixing the championship to gift Benetton and Schumacher the title amongst others.

I also agreed that this was an invasion of his privacy and he has the right to cheat on his wife, lie to his family and hire prostitutes to act out a S&M German Prison fantasy. Not my cuppa tea but as long as it's behind closed doors, it's his conscience.

Where he dips his wick is none of my concern.

[Mark]

Max said that he wouldn't stand for a third term months ago. That I think is the only reason he didn't get pushed out now.

[ioan]

... fixing the championship to gift Benetton and Schumacher the title amongst others.

Proof needed! Just because you or someone on the forum thinks this is the case, it doesn't mean it's true.

[I am evil Homer]

Proof needed! Just because you or someone on the forum thinks this is the case, it doesn't mean it's true.

You might want to bear that in mind the next time you talk about McLaren then.

[Mark]

How did they do that then? If anything in 94 they tried to fix it in favour of Williams

[ioan]

You might want to bear that in mind the next time you talk about McLaren then.

I always do, plus the McCheats always give enough proof of their wrongdoings! :D

[ioan]

How did they do that then? If anything in 94 they tried to fix it in favour of Williams

That's exactly what I was thinking, given that MS was banned for 4 races in order to make it a close battle.

[Valve Bounce]

I always do, plus the McCheats always give enough proof of their wrongdoings! :D

Boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ioan]

Boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why did you have to read it?! :p :

[F1boat]

Max IMO is a good FIA president. Has make a lot of mistakes with his friend Bernie, the worst of it was to see old and legendary tracks dropped or butchered. It is also unfortunate that the cars now are too similar and the rules made them weaker after 2004, a move which only helped McLaren to me. On the other hand, Max showed a character, was willing to punish those who do wrong (McLaren last year, for example) and never bowed to the arrogant British tabloids. I do think, however, that if Jean Todt is elected as FIA president, he will be much better than Max.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's exactly what I was thinking, given that MS was banned for 4 races in order to make it a close battle.
In order to make it a close battle or because Schmacher & Benetton broke rules? Would you prefer an FIA that ignores such rule infringements?

[Knock-on]

How did they do that then? If anything in 94 they tried to fix it in favour of Williams

I really wish I had saved the article but don't know where it is now but it was posted on here somewhere.

It was about the fuel rig problem at Benetton where the team had removed a seal regulating fuel flow. This came to light when there was a refuelling fire and Flav was adamant that the FIA had sanctioned the removal from the official FIA refuelling rig and could prove it.

Obviously, this would have been very serious as it would prove a team had an unfair advantage over the others.

The day before the hearing, a deal was struck in a hotel and suddenly Flav changed his mind during the hearing and the team were not punished but let off leading to MS winning the championship and getting greater F1 exposure in the lucrative German market.

I know I don't have a link but someone probably has so hopefully they can post it.

This is an interesting article.

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

A lot of it is unsubstantiated but there is enough facts in there to add validity to the article. I'm not sure I go along with all of it but the gist is pretty spot on I believe.

[ioan]

I really wish I had saved the article but don't know where it is now but it was posted on here somewhere.

It was about the fuel rig problem at Benetton where the team had removed a seal regulating fuel flow. This came to light when there was a refuelling fire and Flav was adamant that the FIA had sanctioned the removal from the official FIA refuelling rig and could prove it.

Obviously, this would have been very serious as it would prove a team had an unfair advantage over the others.

The day before the hearing, a deal was struck in a hotel and suddenly Flav changed his mind during the hearing and the team were not punished but let off leading to MS winning the championship and getting greater F1 exposure in the lucrative German market.

I know I don't have a link but someone probably has so hopefully they can post it.

This is an interesting article.

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

A lot of it is unsubstantiated but there is enough facts in there to add validity to the article. I'm not sure I go along with all of it but the gist is pretty spot on I believe.


I know what article you are referring too, because I did post it! :D
It was a story told by the son of Benetton's lawyer.

However the article never said that Max tried to gift MS the title in 1994.
The article was about how Bernie and Max managed to find a solution to a highly complicated situation, similar to last year when they anaged to keep both McLaren drivers in the championship even though it was clear that they didn't deserved it given the extent wrong doings.

Keep in mind that it was never proved that the Benetton team did anything wrong, unlike last season.

I find it overenthusiastic to state that Max did everything to gift MS the title while banning him in 4 races!

[Knock-on]

This is the crux.

There is an official refuelling rig that is the same for every team so it's fair.

If one team alters it to increase fuel flow, then they are cheating

unless

They have been given explicit permission to adapt the device from the FIA in which case, the FIA is giving a single team a unfair advantage.

It doesn't come more black and white.

[ShiftingGears]

I'll believe it when he actually doesn't stand for another term.

In order to make it a close battle or because Schmacher & Benetton broke rules? Would you prefer an FIA that ignores such rule infringements?

Would it be too presumptuous to assume that you, like me, would prefer an FIA that had been equal-handed with respect to the disqualification of Schumacher/Benetton from the British GP?

After all, Hakkinen & Alesi also overtook cars on the warm up lap, but they received no sanction.

That said, this really is a discussion for the History & Nostalgia section.

Well, he's hardly going to be out there handleing diplomatic duties and meeting heads of Government etc.

The only thing he can do is within the FIA where his cronies support his will. Everyone else thinks he's a bit of a laughing stock.

Do they?

Other than the usual suspects, nobody has said that. It is certainly incorrect to claim that "everybody" thinks that. Incorrect & misleading.

Here's what Mosley has to say about the people who have expressed that he can't do the job...

"All these people who failed in Formula 1 - and Jackie Stewart fits into that category, although 40 years ago he was a brilliant driver - they sit on the outside offering advice, but no one seriously considers them"

http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/08/07/31/AUTO_Mosley.html

Given that no manufacturer, no track owner, no F1 team owner and no Head of State has publicly supported the views of Stewart & Stoddart post courtroom win for Mosley, then it would appear that Max is correct in his assesment.

Until it becomes public knowledge that people in Formula One are not meeting with Mosley, and until a Head of State or government requests that Mosley does not attend a Grand Prix now that he has been cleared of the 'Nazi' allegation, then you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

[ArrowsFA1]

Would it be too presumptuous to assume that you, like me, would prefer an FIA that had been equal-handed with respect to the disqualification of Schumacher/Benetton from the British GP?

After all, Hakkinen & Alesi also overtook cars on the warm up lap, but they received no sanction.
I'd expect the FIA to be equal-handed full stop, but if your memory is right it appears Hakkinen & Alesi's offence was not spotted.


That said, this really is a discussion for the History & Nostalgia section.
:up:

I'd expect the FIA to be equal-handed full stop, but if your memory is right it appears Hakkinen & Alesi's offence was not spotted.


Well, my memory was almost right....it was Alesi who was overtaken on the warm-up lap, Barrichello was the other offender.

"FIA disciplinary ruling press release
Racing series F1
Date

By FIA Media Relations

The FIA World Motor Sport Council met in Paris on 26 July 1994 under the presidency of Max Mosley, President of the FIA, to consider the report of the FIA Observer at the 1994 British Grand Prix and to decide whether any, or any further penalty should be imposed against the drivers of cars #0, 5, 7, and 14, or their respective teams, and against the Clerk of the Course, Mr. Pierre Aumonier.

After hearing the defence of all relevant parties, the World Motor Sport Council decided the following:

1. To impose a penalty of one race suspension on the driver of car #7 (Mika Hakkinen) for breach of Article 118 and Article 66 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations. In consideration of extenuating circumstances, the penalty is suspended for three races and will only be applied if a breach of the same part of the Formula One Sporting Regulations is made by Mr. Mika Hakkinen during that period.

2. To impose a penalty of one race suspension on the driver of car #14 (Rubens Barrichello) for breach of Article 118 and Article 66 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations. In consideration of extenuating circumstances, the penalty is suspended for three races and will only be applied if a breach of the same part of the Formula One Sporting Regulations is made by Mr. Rubens Barrichello during that period.

3. To acquit the driver of car #0 (Damon Hill). Mr. Hill was able to show that he slowed but did not stop and therefore did not breach Article 151 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.

4. To exclude Benetton Formula Ltd. from the results of the 1994 British Grand Prix and impose a fine of 500,000 US$ for failing on several occasions to obey the instructions of the officials of the 1994 British Grand Prix. This penalty cancels and replaces the one imposed by the Stewards at the British Grand Prix.

5. To exclude the driver of car #5 (M. Schumacher) from the results of the British Grand Prix and impose on him a suspension of two races for non- observation of the black flag of the British Grand Prix.

Both Benetton Formula Ltd. and Mr. Schumacher have the right to appeal in front of the International Court of Appeal of the FIA through their respective National Sporting Authorities. If Michael Schumacher appeals, he will be allowed to race and to score full points until the appeal is heard.

6. The FIA World Motor Sport Council also found that the Clerk of the Course, Mr. Pierre Aumonider (Great Britain) failed in his duties with regard to various points. The FIA World Motor Sport Council decided to impose a suspension of one year of the super licence of Mr. Pierre Aumonier. The World Motor Sport Council also asked the Royal Automobile Club Motor Sport Association to conduct a full investigation into the organisation of the 1994 British Grand Prix and implement the necessary measures to avoid the occurrence of such incidents in the future.

The FIA World Motor Sport Council also considered the report of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate in respect of the electronic systems used on car #5 (Michael Schumacher) at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

After hearing the representatives of Benetton Formula Ltd., the World Motor Sport Council reached the conclusion that, in common with the other two teams, Benetton's computer system contained a facility capable of breaching the regulations. In the absence of any evidence that the device was used and certain evidence that it was not, the World Council imposed no penalty involving the results of the event.

The World Council imposed a fine of 100,000 US$ on Benetton Formula Ltd for failing to make their computer source codes available immediately. An identical fine was imposed on McLaren for the same reason subject to McLaren's right to demand a hearing in October."

From an impeccable source....http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=919&FS=F1

But I digress.......

Theres the video....

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v295991MgjPQ72f

Clearly shows Hakkinen passing Alesi going into Maggots.

[ArrowsFA1]

Re: Mosley not standing for re-election, perhaps we should wait and see...

In July 1999 Max said (http://www.autosport-atlas.com/article.asp?id=5511) "'As I feel at the moment, if I last until October 2001 that will be it. I will think very carefully before standing for a third time because it is actually wrong for people to do these jobs for too long."

In February 2001 it was announced (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/3645/.html) he'd stand again.

After being re-elected in October 2001 the FIA announced (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/5823/.html) Max would not stand again when his term ended in 2005.

Then in April 2003 Max said he might stand again, but went on to say (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/10162/.html) "The great danger is staying too long...I certainly wouldn't go on unless I got an indication of an overwhelmingly high proportion of people wanting me to stay and not just out of politeness."

In July 2004 he made clear he would not stand again, saying (http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/13776/.html) "I am not an F1 team principal so I don't change my mind every few minutes." (This was when he made his "not the sharpest knife in the box" comment about one of the team owners.)

In April 2005 Max proposed (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/43253), and had accepted, a major overhaul of the FIA structure which, reportedly, made it far more difficult for anyone to mount a challenge to his position.

In October 2005 Max was re-elected (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/47947) FIA President unopposed.

[ioan]

Theres the video....

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v295991MgjPQ72f

Clearly shows Hakkinen passing Alesi going into Maggots.

Nice find, it only proves that someone, the FIA or the British stewards were out to stop MS' title bid. The double standards were clear.

[ArrowsFA1]

The double standards were clear.
In what way? Hakkinen and Barrichello were penalised according to the info tamburello posted. They were not penalised as heavily as Schumacher because 1) MS overtook during warm-up laps - DC stalled at the first w/up lap, so there was another - twice and then 2) he and the team ignored the black flag after refusing to serve their penalty imposed during the race.

Anyway, as has been said, this is one for the H&N forum.

Given the subject of your thread is Max not standing, perhaps you have a view on how he has flip-flopped over the years and why we should believe him this time on this subject?

[PolePosition_1]

Proof needed! Just because you or someone on the forum thinks this is the case, it doesn't mean it's true.

You've been going on about double standards of McLaren fans and how bad it is.

And yet you been going on about team orders at German GP with no proof. And your having a go because this guy aint got any proof.

[ioan]

You've been going on about double standards of McLaren fans and how bad it is.

And yet you been going on about team orders at German GP with no proof. And your having a go because this guy aint got any proof.

Proof was served on the other forum, several times, but you chose to ignore because it wasn't in english, so get off your high horse (and maybe learn some other languages too, in your way down).

[PolePosition_1]

Proof was served on the other forum, several times, but you chose to ignore because it wasn't in english, so get off your high horse (and maybe learn some other languages too, in your way down).

Mate there was no proof whatsoever. There was an article in Finnish with no quotes!!

All due respect, but if you base your opinions on proof in the form of a foreign article with no quotes, just their interpretation of how Heikki was. And on top of that you can't actually read the article, you rely on someone to translate it (and even then two people translated it differently) - its no wonder you appear to have no common sense for taking in what actually happened and what you think happened in your red tinted glasses outlook of F1.

[Knock-on]

Do they?

Other than the usual suspects, nobody has said that. It is certainly incorrect to claim that "everybody" thinks that. Incorrect & misleading.

Here's what Mosley has to say about the people who have expressed that he can't do the job...

"All these people who failed in Formula 1 - and Jackie Stewart fits into that category, although 40 years ago he was a brilliant driver - they sit on the outside offering advice, but no one seriously considers them"

http://www.sportinglife.com/formula1/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=formula1/08/07/31/AUTO_Mosley.html

Given that no manufacturer, no track owner, no F1 team owner and no Head of State has publicly supported the views of Stewart & Stoddart post courtroom win for Mosley, then it would appear that Max is correct in his assesment.

Until it becomes public knowledge that people in Formula One are not meeting with Mosley, and until a Head of State or government requests that Mosley does not attend a Grand Prix now that he has been cleared of the 'Nazi' allegation, then you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim.


Didn't Max say that this is seen as a source of humour by most people?

Are people laughing with Max or at him over this I wonder?

For the last part, I said that nobody had retracted what has been officially quoted so until that happens, I feel my comment is qualified.

You cannot say that I cannot back up my claim when it still stands and has not been retracted.

As for future decisions that may or may not be made, I'm not a fortune teller and cannot comment on things that haven't happened. Seeing as Max normally attends GP's, perhaps his absence may speak volumes ;)

[ioan]

Mate there was no proof whatsoever. There was an article in Finnish with no quotes!!

All due respect, but if you base your opinions on proof in the form of a foreign article with no quotes, just their interpretation of how Heikki was. And on top of that you can't actually read the article, you rely on someone to translate it (and even then two people translated it differently) - its no wonder you appear to have no common sense for taking in what actually happened and what you think happened in your red tinted glasses outlook of F1.

The quites were reported by forum member imediately after the end of the race when Heiki was interviewed by the Finish TV, still you chose to ignore it.

I say to stop fighting on this one, you clearly chose to ignore what other presented because it wasn't in the English press. That's enough for me to say that I'll stop discussing with you because of your nationalistic limited views about the sport and the press.

Nothing more to add, and I will not reply to any of your further replies on this subject. End of it.

[555-04Q2]

:erm: I thought this thread was about Max and his term of office... :(

[ioan]

:erm: I thought this thread was about Max and his term of office... :(

You know how it is around here, things degenerate in what happened with Benetton back in the 90's and Ferrari after 2000, all of this because these 2 team beat the top British teams, so it must be about Max favoring them!

[ArrowsFA1]

:erm: I thought this thread was about Max and his term of office... :(

You know how it is around here, things degenerate in what happened with Benetton back in the 90's and Ferrari after 2000, all of this because these 2 team beat the top British teams, so it must be about Max favoring them!
Given the subject of your thread is Max not standing, perhaps you have a view on how he has flip-flopped over the years (Post #24) and why we should believe him this time on this subject?

[ArrowsFA1]

No view then ioan?

[ioan]

No view then ioan?

I have no idea why he did what he did, nor do I know what he thinks at this moment, so I better wait an see.

[Storm]

so Max is not going to stay beyond 2009? who cares
he can go today if he wants!

[leopard]

Perhaps, he is a low profile by saying wouldn't stand for another term. The fact that he was and supposedly to be elected again is probably something related to trust from which he is considered still capable of performing the job.

[SGWilko]

Do they?

Other than the usual suspects, nobody has said that. It is certainly incorrect to claim that "everybody" thinks that. Incorrect & misleading.

Here's what Mosley has to say about the people who have expressed that he can't do the job...

"All these people who failed in Formula 1 - and Jackie Stewart fits into that category

That quote attributed to Max is priceless. JYS failed in F1? Are you serious.

[MAX_THRUST]

I truly believe he will stay on, some how some way he will......

Even if no one wanted him to, he'll find a way.

[MAX_THRUST]

As for saying JYS is a failure in F1?????????????????????????????????????

I really think he's loosing the plot. What do you think Ioan? Do you think JYS is a failure too?

[ioan]

As for saying JYS is a failure in F1?????????????????????????????????????

I really think he's loosing the plot. What do you think Ioan? Do you think JYS is a failure too?

I think that you can pick up Knockie and play the useless questions games with him! He seems to have a lot of time for it, as you do. :D

[MAX_THRUST]

So you don't have an opinion on JYS then being useless?

Oh whats Knockie when its at home???

Compare the amount of posts I make to you, I think when it comes to time on there hands you win hands down.

[Dave B]

As for saying JYS is a failure in F1?????????????????????????????????????

I really think he's loosing the plot. What do you think Ioan? Do you think JYS is a failure too?

That's priceless. Jackie Stewart a failure? If 27 race wins and 3 Championships makes a man a failure then I never want to win at anything again!

Oh, perhaps Max [Mosley] means "failure" as a team owner. Setting up a Formula One team which took a Monaco podium in its first season and won a race in only its third year (compared with the uber-budget of, say, Toyota which has so far won bog-all); then making a handsome profit selling that team to Ford.

Not bad for a "certifiable half-wit", eh Max? :rolleyes:

[Rover V8]

You know how it is around here, things degenerate in what happened with Benetton back in the 90's and Ferrari after 2000, all of this because these 2 team beat the top British teams, so it must be about Max favoring them!


At the time MS got black-flagged at Silverstone in '94, wasn't Benetton still a British team...?

I didn't think they started to compete under Italian nationality until a couple of years later.....

[Azumanga Davo]

As for saying JYS is a failure in F1?????????????????????????????????????

I really think he's loosing the plot. What do you think Ioan? Do you think JYS is a failure too?

How is March, these days? Such a huge success back in F1 in the seventies was it not, Max?

Why have potshots at a bloke who achieved more than many people ever did, including yourself Max?

I'm amazed that the 'neutral and public face' of F1 and indeed of all motorsport gets column inches for his tirades against the people who were made legends of the sport many years previously. If any other governing body president ever shot themselves in the foot with such comments, they would get marched out the foyer, through the door and get torn apart by the fans. Possibly. ;)

[ioan]

Oh, perhaps Max [Mosley] means "failure" as a team owner. Setting up a Formula One team which took a Monaco podium in its first season and won a race in only its third year (compared with the uber-budget of, say, Toyota which has so far won bog-all); then making a handsome profit selling that team to Ford.

Comparing the years of the Stewart F1 team with the post 2000 era is out of order.
The precision of the technologies involved changed to such an extent that is impossible to compare their achievements.

[Knock-on]

Comparing the years of the Stewart F1 team with the post 2000 era is out of order.
The precision of the technologies involved changed to such an extent that is impossible to compare their achievements.

So the 50 years of F1 racing and success gained before 2000 is irellevent and it's only the last 8 years that matter.

:rolleyes:

[Dave B]

Lovin' the new signature, Knockie :rotflmao:

[Knock-on]

Lovin' the new signature, Knockie :rotflmao:

You're my hero. :kiss:

:laugh:

[BDunnell]

Comparing the years of the Stewart F1 team with the post 2000 era is out of order.
The precision of the technologies involved changed to such an extent that is impossible to compare their achievements.

I look forward to you making no comparisons between any events in the past and present ever again, then.

Given that the opinion voiced in your signature makes just such a judgment in favour of one driver over all others that had gone before him, despite the fact that the achievements of drivers from one era are just as hard to compare with those of other eras as are the achievements of teams (unless you're being purely statistical), I'd say that you're not averse to such comparisons when they suit you.

[BDunnell]

Lovin' the new signature, Knockie :rotflmao:

Me too. I think we should all have one along similar lines.

[ioan]

I look forward to you making no comparisons between any events in the past and present ever again, then.

Given that the opinion voiced in your signature makes just such a judgment in favour of one driver over all others that had gone before him, despite the fact that the achievements of drivers from one era are just as hard to compare with those of other eras as are the achievements of teams (unless you're being purely statistical), I'd say that you're not averse to such comparisons when they suit you.

I think you should try to understand what one means before posting.

In the era when Stewart started his F1 team, it was fairly easy to luck into a podium or a win given the number of technical DNFs.

Nowadays this is fairly harder, because of the much higher reliability levels.

[BDunnell]

I think you should try to understand what one means before posting.

In the era when Stewart started his F1 team, it was fairly easy to luck into a podium or a win given the number of technical DNFs.

Nowadays this is fairly harder, because of the much higher reliability levels.

That criteria is no different to any of those that make it impossible to compare drivers from different eras. And I know full well what I and you mean before posting, thank you very much. My comprehension is actually quite adequate.

[ArrowsFA1]

In the era when Stewart started his F1 team, it was fairly easy to luck into a podium or a win given the number of technical DNFs.

Nowadays this is fairly harder, because of the much higher reliability levels.
I wouldn't use the term "luck into" but I take your point about reliability being better today than it once was. However, winning in F1 has never been easy, or even "fairly easy".

The Stewart team emerged from Paul Stewart Racing, which had been very successful, and highly respected, over a number of years in a number of different racing categories. They didn't "luck into" that success either.

Mosely's more recent comments about JYS (Max appears unable to stop bullying when he's warmed to his them :rolleyes :) are again beneath contempt. To describe a 3xWDC as a "failure" is laughable. Oh, I'm sure Max has ensured that his comments were worded in a way that wouldn't attract legal action, but for an FIA President to be talking (again) about an F1 champion in these terms is bringing the sport into further disrepute.

[ioan]

...but for an FIA President to be talking (again) about an F1 champion in these terms is bringing the sport into further disrepute.

Please give us a brake with this "bringing the the sport into further disrepute"!
Coming from someone who thinks that McLaren and RD with their cheating and lying didn't do the most harm to the sport it's a bit rich and hypocrite to the highest level.

[ArrowsFA1]

Please give us a brake with this "bringing the the sport into further disrepute"!
Coming from someone who thinks that McLaren and RD with their cheating and lying didn't do the most harm to the sport it's a bit rich and hypocrite to the highest level.
I have no doubt that the events of last year did a great deal of harm to the sport but McLaren have been fined $100m and removed from the 2007 WCC. They've been punished for their part in events.

That, however, is no form of defence for Max and his indefensible comments about a 3xWDC. I have little doubt that if someone in F1 (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the FIA), perhaps a team owner, described the FIA President as a "certified halfwit" and a "failure" they would be hauled in front of the FIA to explain their comments at the very least.

[Knock-on]

Please give us a brake with this "bringing the the sport into further disrepute"!
Coming from someone who thinks that McLaren and RD with their cheating and lying didn't do the most harm to the sport it's a bit rich and hypocrite to the highest level.

Please give the whole "McCheats, Ronspeak, lying etc" BS a brake then.

It's history, the team have been punished and the McLaren fans have accepted it.

It's a bit rich and hypocritical to ask people to stop discussing a current issue when you can't leave alone something that's done and dusted.

:rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Please give the whole "McCheats, Ronspeak, lying etc" BS a brake then.

It's history, the team have been punished and the McLaren fans have accepted it.

It's a bit rich and hypocritical to ask people to stop discussing a current issue when you can't leave alone something that's done and dusted.

:rolleyes:

:up:

Or, indeed, if one wants people to stop going on about Michael Schumacher's misdemeanours.

ioan, you always say that you're merely commenting in the same way about McLaren, etc, as others do/did about your favourite driver. I didn't like that then, and I don't like the tone of the endless moralising about McLaren now. So, please turn the record off.

[AndyRAC]

If it is true, and Max does intend to stand down - who should be President of the FIA (not the F1 Boss)?

[ioan]

I have no doubt that the events of last year did a great deal of harm to the sport but McLaren have been fined $100m and removed from the 2007 WCC. They've been punished for their part in events.

:laugh:

So if a person kills another person and than goes to jail that's it he's absolved of his wrongdoings and is equal to those who never harmed anyone!

You make me laugh with your tries to ilogically back up your bias.


That, however, is no form of defence for Max and his indefensible comments about a 3xWDC. I have little doubt that if someone in F1 (i.e. under the jurisdiction of the FIA), perhaps a team owner, described the FIA President as a "certified halfwit" and a "failure" they would be hauled in front of the FIA to explain their comments at the very least.

And how exactly is Mosely bringing the sport into disrepute by expressing his opinion about someone else?!
Oh I see, it must be that way because you want to see it like that!

Your hatred for Max is puzzling me. Any chance you are Ron Dennis, Martin Withmarsh or Norbert Haug?!

[ioan]

Please give the whole "McCheats, Ronspeak, lying etc" BS a brake then.

It's history, the team have been punished and the McLaren fans have accepted it.

It's a bit rich and hypocritical to ask people to stop discussing a current issue when you can't leave alone something that's done and dusted.

:rolleyes:


You better learn to live with it. They are proven cheaters and liars, and I do not intend to give up on my right on expressing an opinion about them.

PS: I'll be more than willing to give the team a new chance when the cheaters an liars have retired.

[ArrowsFA1]

So if a person kills another person and than goes to jail that's it he's absolved of his wrongdoings and is equal to those who never harmed anyone!
No. That's not what I was saying at all.

And how exactly is Mosely bringing the sport into disrepute by expressing his opinion about someone else?
1)Max is FIA President. Jackie Stewart is a champion and winning constructor in the sport that the FIA governs.
2) "Certified halfwit" is not opinion, it's an insult. Describing Stewart as a failure is factually incorrect.

[Knock-on]

You better learn to live with it. They are proven cheaters and liars, and I do not intend to give up on my right on expressing an opinion about them.

PS: I'll be more than willing to give the team a new chance when the cheaters an liars have retired.

So, you think it's OK for you to ask people to stop expressing their opinion as they have a right to do but see no hypocrisy in harping on about something historical which has no relevance to the current subject.

No problem, you have a right to do that but do you ever wonder why very few people take you seriously?

Yes, yes, I know. Nobody takes me seriously yada, yada, yada will be the response. :laugh:

Still, I do try and use facts to back up my opinions where you generally refuse when challenged.

Come on, do you really believe half the stuff you argue about?

[ioan]

No. That's not what I was saying at all.

That's exactly what you were saying. Than offender should be considered absolved of his guilt after being punished.

I don't see it that way.


1)Max is FIA President. Jackie Stewart is a champion and winning constructor in the sport that the FIA governs.
2) "Certified halfwit" is not opinion, it's an insult. Describing Stewart as a failure is factually incorrect.

Why isn't certified halfwit an opinion :?:

And for whatever reason Stewart sold his team and went on to become a noisy old man often talking BS. In fact his opinions are very biased towards British teams and drivers.

[ioan]

So, you think it's OK for you to ask people to stop expressing their opinion as they have a right to do but see no hypocrisy in harping on about something historical which has no relevance to the current subject.

I'm still to see any proof, of the sport being brought into disrepute by Mosley, from Arrows or from you.

You can post your opinion, he can post his, but I dare to challenge it as long as what you post is only BS.

[Knock-on]

I'm still to see any proof, of the sport being brought into disrepute by Mosley, from Arrows or from you.

You can post your opinion, he can post his, but I dare to challenge it as long as what you post is only BS.

OK, what is the criteria for bringing the sport into disrepute. It's hardly a measurable quality.

Is it having the President refused entry to GP's?
Is it international ridicule in the media.
Is it people in pubs who never knew who Max was laughing about his antics?
Is it being paid to sell the commercial rights of F1 for a 10th of their value?
Is it lying to the media?
Is it conducting a personal vendetta against a team?
Is it insulting a 3 times WDC and ambassador for the sport?

I've lots more. So, what is your measure or shall we dispose with the semantics of the word and say that someone that has committed just 1 of those misdemeanours isn't fit to run the FIA.

[ioan]

Is it having the President refused entry to GP's?

No. I can't see how could they do it!



Is it international ridicule in the media.

Not sure I understand the sentence! :D



Is it people in pubs who never knew who Max was laughing about his antics?

Didn't see anyone doing it around here. People hardly know who Max is.



Is it being paid to sell the commercial rights of F1 for a 10th of their value?

What does that have to do with the sport being brought into disrepute?!



Is it lying to the media?

You talking about Ron Dennis?



Is it conducting a personal vendetta against a team?

What vendetta? What team?



Is it insulting a 3 times WDC and ambassador for the sport?

How can you call ambasador of the sport someone who denigrates the sport?! Who talks about witch hunts and so on?!



I've lots more.

Bring it on then, maybe we find something really valuable, that would support your allegations.


So, what is your measure or shall we dispose with the semantics of the word and say that someone that has committed just 1 of those misdemeanours isn't fit to run the FIA.

The day when teams and / or will quit the sport because of Mosley, I will acknowledge he that he was detrimental to the sport.
However there is no such, only the BS you and Arrows dreamed up.

[555-04Q2]

"Certified halfwit" is not opinion, it's an insult. Describing Stewart as a failure is factually incorrect.

To be fair to both parties here...JS was and still is a great driver. His mouth, on the other hand, is not so great :(

[ArrowsFA1]

That's exactly what you were saying. Than offender should be considered absolved of his guilt after being punished.
No ioan, again that's your interpretation. Exactly what I said was "McLaren have been fined $100m and removed from the 2007 WCC. They've been punished for their part in events" i.e. they've been found guilty and punished.

It would seem that you would continue to punish an offender, any offender, despite them having served the sentence imposed by the relevant authority. Doing so appears to be the only defence you have for Max Mosley.

The FIA President's comments about Jackie Stewart are a different issue. Yes, Max made them in the light of JYS expressing his opinion of the way the FIA dealt with the McLaren case, but in my view the comments have been insulting and totally inappropriate for an FIA President to make of an F1 World Champion.

For a comparison take a look how one team owner disagreed (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69473) with JYS's opinion expressed about his own team:

"I have enormous respect for Sir Jackie, he was one of grand prix racing's truly great world champions. Equally, we're always willing to accept constructive criticism... .the fact is that Sir Jackie retired from motor racing in 1973, which is 35 years ago, and the sport has moved on in that time...
It wouldn't have been hard for the FIA President to express his disagreement in a similar way, but then it wouldn't have been Max would it. Max holds a grudge and two issues stand out in that respect. 1) JYS was not entirely complimentary about car Max's March organisation provided to the Tyrrell team for much of the 1970 season, and then 2) the demands from the FIA of the Stewart F1 team to provide guarantees that they had the finances in place to compete in their second season.

[BDunnell]

Your hatred for Max is puzzling me. Any chance you are Ron Dennis, Martin Withmarsh or Norbert Haug?!

Nice to see the patented ioan automatic post generator throwing that one out again...

[Knock-on]

Nice to see the patented ioan automatic post generator throwing that one out again...

Now you've done it.

Go straight to the "Max Hater, Ron Luvver, Fanboy" club for that one!!

Do not go, do not collect £200.

:laugh:

The FIA President's comments about Jackie Stewart are a different issue. Yes, Max made them in the light of JYS expressing his opinion of the way the FIA dealt with the McLaren case, but in my view the comments have been insulting and totally inappropriate for an FIA President to make of an F1 World Champion.

For a comparison take a look how one team owner disagreed (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69473) with JYS's opinion expressed about his own team:

It wouldn't have been hard for the FIA President to express his disagreement in a similar way, but then it wouldn't have been Max would it. Max holds a grudge and two issues stand out in that respect. 1) JYS was not entirely complimentary about car Max's March organisation provided to the Tyrrell team for much of the 1970 season, and then 2) the demands from the FIA of the Stewart F1 team to provide guarantees that they had the finances in place to compete in their second season.

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.

For me, Stewart insulted the FIA and in doing so insulted its President....he therefore deserved an insult in return.

[BDunnell]

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.

For me, Stewart insulted the FIA and in doing so insulted its President....he therefore deserved an insult in return.

I really, really feel you treat the FIA and its President with undue reverence. You seem to suggest that it and he are beyond criticism. Do you apply the same reasoning to, for example, politicians of the parties you don't support, or do you consider them fair game for insults?

[speeddurango]

It's sort of pathetic to see people cheering on his retirement without having any idea what he's done.

[markabilly]

OK, what is the criteria for bringing the sport into disrepute. It's hardly a measurable quality.

Is it having the President refused entry to GP's?
Is it international ridicule in the media.
Is it people in pubs who never knew who Max was laughing about his antics?
Is it being paid to sell the commercial rights of F1 for a 10th of their value?
Is it lying to the media?
Is it conducting a personal vendetta against a team?
Is it insulting a 3 times WDC and ambassador for the sport?

I've lots more. So, what is your measure or shall we dispose with the semantics of the word and say that someone that has committed just 1 of those misdemeanours isn't fit to run the FIA.

Your problem is that you expect people in such positions to have high standards of conduct and morals....


Like you, I can't stand the NotW and think Max is damaging for Motorsport based on what he has done to F1. Things like the 300million bribe for gifting the rights to bernie and fixing the championship to gift Benetton and Schumacher the title amongst others.

I also agreed that this was an invasion of his privacy and he has the right to cheat on his wife, lie to his family and hire prostitutes to act out a S&M German Prison fantasy. Not my cuppa tea but as long as it's behind closed doors, it's his conscience.

Where he dips his wick is none of my concern.

Problem is and remains it is NO longer behind closed doors.....and while I ignored the NOTW stuff, when he took the stand and said what he did say and described what he has done, in public, all to win some rinky dink lawsuit where all of the enormous sum of chump change of $120k (for Max in comparsion to his 300 million and $70k per year apartment for his prostitute) goes to charity, and all those fees to lawyers, well now the real inside view of max is out....and the behavior described in these two posts is demonstrated as perfectly consistent with a perverted, sadistic state of mind, and the moral character one would expect of an untrustworthy pimp who does not know the meaning of honesty.

What you must understand that while some might expect better behavior from someone in that position, for some others with the vested interests, it is merely an insignifigant matter of no concern,.......but if it were RD doing something like that, we all know where certain Maxie supporters would be jumping, with both feet.

Hypocrisy and being "exonerated" by the sole testimony of his group of whores is really demonstrating the higher level of hypocrisy and depravity then I thought rationally possible from someone in such a position.

The actions of "Mac cheaters" is different from max's own admitted behavior, because he was lieing, stealing and cheating on people he allegedly loved rather than competitors like Mac was doing. How much more likely is he to lie and steal from those who are business asociates and others? Well duuuh :rolleyes:

[ArrowsFA1]

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.
True, but it is a question RD has answered time and time again, so he could have fired off a dismissive response. Instead, his tone was respectful while still rejecting JYS's view.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.
I think the point that JYS was not a party to the full facts is an important one. Few people had all the facts, but on the basis of the facts available there was an impression (JYS was not alone in holding this view) that the FIA were over zealous in their pursuit of McLaren. He was perfectly entitled to express his view, just as Max was perfectly entitled to refute that opinion.

However, to refute the opinion in the way that he did was, as Damon Hill wrote (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/kevingarside/2322764/Damon-Hill-defends-legend-Jackie-Stewart.html) in his letter to Autosport, "nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Strong stuff, but there was (and remains) a view that Max 'crossed a line' with his comments.

[markabilly]

Interesting article, keeps describing woman E as being morally bankrupt, lack of morality and decency, lack of loyalty and faith...funny I can not tell there is any difference between Woman E and Maxie....indeed, at first thought the article was refferring to him

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=35634

But when you wrestle with pigs in the mud....birds of a feather hang together...fruit don't fall far from the tree..... :D

All things considered the FIA and Max deserve each other

[markabilly]

True, but it is a question RD has answered time and time again, so he could have fired off a dismissive response. Instead, his tone was respectful while still rejecting JYS's view.

I think the point that JYS was not a party to the full facts is an important one. Few people had all the facts, but on the basis of the facts available there was an impression (JYS was not alone in holding this view) that the FIA were over zealous in their pursuit of McLaren. He was perfectly entitled to express his view, just as Max was perfectly entitled to refute that opinion.

However, to refute the opinion in the way that he did was, as Damon Hill wrote (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/kevingarside/2322764/Damon-Hill-defends-legend-Jackie-Stewart.html) in his letter to Autosport, "nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Strong stuff, but there was (and remains) a view that Max 'crossed a line' with his comments.
Not in max's mind. As a practioner of sadism, his punishment of JYS crossed no lines. Indeed it brought no blood. Therefore "utmost" is hardly an appropriate term for Max's behavior.

Strange that Hill would write:"nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Well now, imagine that. Damon Hill has more insight as Max's mental state than I would have thought possible at the time he wrote that. Hill's opinion has now been proven true as what Hill describes "abuse" and "humilation on its victim" is merely conduct consistent with max's own court testimony as to his real character and joys in life.

BINGO :D

And one could add in the following from the same letter:"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA." No way it could call that into question, as after all, max has been "vindicated" :laugh: , but does leave open the question as with that insight into Max's judgment and character, did Hill know someone in M15......

[markabilly]

And I forgot to add, how much hypocrisy does it take to distinguish between actually beating "make beleive" prisoners in a prison camp while wearing a german military jacket is very different from wearing a military jacket with nazi sysmbols while actually beating make-believe prisoners..where the former constitutes "vindication" and the latter does not.

sadism, racism and nazism are fundamentally the same mental disease and have the same foundation for inflecting brutality on those laid helplessly before them--a desire to inflict pain on those who are thought to be inferior and unworthy of respect because they are members of a certain group, be they "half-wits", jewish, female or male, black, brown or whatever.

[BDunnell]

And I forgot to add, how much hypocrisy does it take to distinguish between actually beating "make beleive" prisoners in a prison camp while wearing a german military jacket is very different from wearing a military jacket with nazi sysmbols while actually beating make-believe prisoners..where the former constitutes "vindication" and the latter does not.

sadism, racism and nazism are fundamentally the same mental disease and have the same foundation for inflecting brutality on those laid helplessly before them--a desire to inflict pain on those who are thought to be inferior and unworthy of respect because they are members of a certain group, be they "half-wits", jewish, female or male, black, brown or whatever.

We've been through this before, but I simply do not believe that, whatever personal, maybe psychological, issues Max has that led to him seeking the type of sexual gratification he was after, I don't think those in themselves had or have any impact on his ability to do his job. I agree, his tastes are strange. However, they are his own, and he should be left to deal with them himself. No-one will ever prevent people from having such 'out of the ordinary' tastes, either.

[markabilly]

We've been through this before, but I simply do not believe that, whatever personal, maybe psychological, issues Max has that led to him seeking the type of sexual gratification he was after, I don't think those in themselves had or have any impact on his ability to do his job. I agree, his tastes are strange. However, they are his own, and he should be left to deal with them himself. No-one will ever prevent people from having such 'out of the ordinary' tastes, either.


Sorry but these are not "out of ordinary taste" issues, but represent a desire to engage in an infliction of real pain upon helpless individuals that , while connected with sex, goes well beyond sex gratification.

The role play engaged in by a mature man for forty years is a substitute for doing the real thing but because of the limitation of certain laws make it impossible to do it without the real potential for being put into prison as many a sick serial killer or sadistic criminal has discovered after torturing someone, so the alternative is to engage in role playing with people who are well paid for their 'consent".

My opinion is simply based upon max's own courtroom statements, and the actual (not pretend) infliction of pain and injury upon the victims, including himself. This is not some fantasy, but an addiction and an actual carrying out (in part) of those desires. At this type of stage, the only real barrier to worse behavior is the fear of getting caught of doing it to someone who is not so "consenting". Remove that barrier, and you then have the stuff that concetration camps are made of, be they nazi, facist comunist or whatever.. The stuff that brutual dictatorships inflict upon ther citizens.

it is far worse than some fans who have "blackened up" to make fun of Lewis. At least they are not acting out sadistic infliction of pain......

And is the kind of conduct so aptly described by Damon Hill as "Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA."

And never forget that while one might speculate as to all this based on a trash rag which is no basis to really beleive anything, Max has now confirmed this in the most clear fashion of his own testimony and his court case (a case that was built on solely on his testimony and that of his whores) Now, please, a matter of taste????

[BDunnell]

Sorry but these are not "out of ordinary taste" issues, but represent a desire to engage in an infliction of real pain upon helpless individuals that , while connected with sex, goes well beyond sex gratification.

The role play engaged in by a mature man for forty years is a substitute for doing the real thing but because of the limitation of certain laws make it impossible to do it without the real potential for being put into prison as many a sick serial killer or sadistic criminal has discovered after torturing someone, so the alternative is to engage in role playing with people who are well paid for their 'consent".

My opinion is simply based upon max's own courtroom statements, and the actual (not pretend) infliction of pain and injury upon the victims, including himself. This is not some fantasy, but an addiction and an actual carrying out (in part) of those desires. At this type of stage, the only real barrier to worse behavior is the fear of getting caught of doing it to someone who is not so "consenting". Remove that barrier, and you then have the stuff that concetration camps are made of, be they nazi, facist comunist or whatever.. The stuff that brutual dictatorships inflict upon ther citizens.

it is far worse than some fans who have "blackened up" to make fun of Lewis. At least they are not acting out sadistic infliction of pain......

And is the kind of conduct so aptly described by Damon Hill as "Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA."

And never forget that while one might speculate as to all this based on a trash rag which is no basis to really beleive anything, Max has now confirmed this in the most clear fashion of his own testimony and his court case (a case that was built on solely on his testimony and that of his whores) Now, please, a matter of taste????

So you would make any man who enjoys sado-masochistic sex, or any sort of sexual activity outside a narrow range of 'normality', quit his job?

[markabilly]

So you would make any man who enjoys sado-masochistic sex, or any sort of sexual activity outside a narrow range of 'normality', quit his job?

First, we are not talking any job

Second, the role playing going on was not sado-masochistic sex, it was sadism that goes way beyond simple sex fantasies, as described by max his self, under oath, where the real thrill comes from inflicting real pain in a prison setting, while engaged in activities that are not conducted in civilized, normal prison scenarios, although they may be found in other prisons (as I said before) be they nazi, communistic or some two-bit dictatorship. After all, even down in the deep south, the heart of Dixie, they quit whipping black prisoners until they bleed more than fifty years ago....

Couple that with the intended degradation of women, the racial overtones and the other stuff, his testimony about his role playing and all that, demonstrates the description of Damon Hill to be spot on. Strange he said that long before this other came to light.

And as far as I am concerned the situation is no diferent than a confessed murderer or someone confessing to cheating on his employer and far worse than merely "blacking up" at some sporting event by some fans, not one of whom happened to be the lowest fia official to be found......

as Hill said long before this came to light,
'Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA."

and more than consistent with his own testimony regarding max's own personal character and judgment, and just plain old hypocrisy of the worst sort, especially with those who would thoroughly exam every possible fault of mac and even the personal life of RD, but meekly turn a blind eye to max, and use the so-called "vindication" of an old judge to make Max pure and whole again (you know, the same judge said well it was illegal but since the neighbors did not complain about the noise, they just do not prosecute this sort of stuff to make it that big of a crime.....and found admitted whores to be credible witnesses, fails to understandd the signifigance of the term "aryan" or the german word for black people....and on...)

[ArrowsFA1]

We've been through this before, but I simply do not believe that, whatever personal, maybe psychological, issues Max has that led to him seeking the type of sexual gratification he was after, I don't think those in themselves had or have any impact on his ability to do his job.
However, it was interesting to read Hill's particular choice of words, given they were written before the NOTW invaded Max's private life and made it public.

I'd guess Hill chose his words carefully, after a great deal of thought; writing a very public letter to Autosport for someone in his position is not something to be done lightly. Unless like Max's response to BMW/Mercedes, which he has now described as "a rather unkind statement" and that "people do stupid things in the heat of the moment", Hill's letter was a knee-jerk response.

If not, his choice of words do in hindsight somewhat reflect the private Max Mosley as well as the public figure. That in itself does not question his ability to do the job of FIA President, but it does perhaps raise questions about his attitudes to criticism and the way he responds to such criticism. An attitude that has been highlighted in no uncertain terms by his response to Jackie Stewart.

[Valve Bounce]

Somebody forgot his koolaid!!

[markabilly]

However, it was interesting to read Hill's particular choice of words, given they were written before the NOTW invaded Max's private life and made it public.

I'd guess Hill chose his words carefully, after a great deal of thought; writing a very public letter to Autosport for someone in his position is not something to be done lightly. Unless like Max's response to BMW/Mercedes, which he has now described as "a rather unkind statement" and that "people do stupid things in the heat of the moment", Hill's letter was a knee-jerk response.

If not, his choice of words do in hindsight somewhat reflect the private Max Mosley as well as the public figure. That in itself does not question his ability to do the job of FIA President, but it does perhaps raise questions about his attitudes to criticism and the way he responds to such criticism. An attitude that has been highlighted in no uncertain terms by his response to Jackie Stewart.


His attitude and reponse to criticism?? No weak apologetic synoyms for "judgment and character", the esential elements for the job of president. Max is not some mechanic, some janitor or even some engineer (or some fan in Spain all painted up). In such a job, one can not separate the private character from the public character where the private character and judgment is morally bankrupt, except through hypocrisy of the worst sort.

So to sum it up, based on Max's own testimony, he is (1) a sadist, (2) liar to the ones he loved, (3) cheater (4) sexist degrader of women and (5) hypocrite, who as such engages in "parties" where the role play humilates the female victims, based on being Aryans and black people (or the color of their hair rather than their skin-a joke no doubt thought up by lawyers and fundementally just as racist-) by whippings until blood is drawn, lice inspections, being stripped naked, thermometers stuck up their butts and genitals shaved (the same conduct last engaged in on a massive scale by a Western European country was Nazi Germany) And if the testimony of max's whores is to be believed, you know, the one that max "loved" most and ran the show, who the court found to be "credible", then add (6) pimp to the list. Then add in the very physical nature of the role play (again role play of this nature is done because it is too risky to be doing it for real, unless one is a prison commandent in a Nazi, Stalinist or some other dictatorship country)

There ain't enough Kool aid to hide all that, so let us all be hypocrites and pretend that it was all in private. After all, the killings and liquidations in Nazi germany or Stalinist russia were done in extreme privacy and fully sanctioned by those governements as being very very lawful. Nothing illegal there, indeed the judge did note that Max's conduct was illegal, just not enough prosecution of the activity unless the neighbors complain, so the old judge needs to go ahead and "vindicate" Stalin and Hitler and all their henchmen as those actions were NOT illegal at all under the laws of their countries at the time of commission

[PolePosition_1]

His attitude and reponse to criticism?? No weak apologetic synoyms for "judgment and character", the esential elements for the job of president. Max is not some mechanic, some janitor or even some engineer (or some fan in Spain all painted up). In such a job, one can not separate the private character from the public character where the private character and judgment is morally bankrupt, except through hypocrisy of the worst sort.

So to sum it up, based on Max's own testimony, he is (1) a sadist, (2) liar to the ones he loved, (3) cheater (4) sexist degrader of women and (5) hypocrite, who as such engages in "parties" where the role play humilates the female victims, based on being Aryans and black people (or the color of their hair rather than their skin-a joke no doubt thought up by lawyers and fundementally just as racist-) by whippings until blood is drawn, lice inspections, being stripped naked, thermometers stuck up their butts and genitals shaved (the same conduct last engaged in on a massive scale by a Western European country was Nazi Germany) And if the testimony of max's whores is to be believed, you know, the one that max "loved" most and ran the show, who the court found to be "credible", then add (6) pimp to the list. Then add in the very physical nature of the role play (again role play of this nature is done because it is too risky to be doing it for real, unless one is a prison commandent in a Nazi, Stalinist or some other dictatorship country)

There ain't enough Kool aid to hide all that, so let us all be hypocrites and pretend that it was all in private. After all, the killings and liquidations in Nazi germany or Stalinist russia were done in extreme privacy and fully sanctioned by those governements as being very very lawful. Nothing illegal there, indeed the judge did note that Max's conduct was illegal, just not enough prosecution of the activity unless the neighbors complain, so the old judge needs to go ahead and "vindicate" Stalin and Hitler and all their henchmen as those actions were NOT illegal at all under the laws of their countries at the time of commission

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but why should your opinion have more right than anothers.

If Max enjoys being spanked, so what? Its not hurting you? Where is the harm in it?

Please note though that 1/3 of people enjoyed spanking and found the idea of an S&M session a sexual turn on in the Official UK Sex Report 2008.

I'll admit, its not my cup of tea, but its his private life, I respect that and don't think any less of him. I don't like football, its not my cup of tea, I find it boring, but I'm not going to judge guy on this.

I've replied to your post on another topic several times, and not once have you replied despite you keep on posting about Max, and you seem to have not read / ignored it. And I want to find your opinion. So I'll be lazy and just copy and paste it here.

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

All due respect here, but its because of comments like that that we have laws.

Laws in place to make sure people aren't judged by stereotypes and given a fair chance.

To you, what he did was wrong, despite it being legal. But what you see as wrong is totally subjective to how you view life. Personally, its not my cup of tea, but I'm not one to judge him on it. I believe what he does in his private time is up to him. As long as its in line with the law.

Does that mean we have 20 million people who are sadistic in this country?

In other societys, its frowned upon what women are allowed to drive on public roads, in others they think its weird women have equal rights, in others they think its wrong to eat bacon.

All different parts of the world have different cultures (despite globalisation ). And people brought up in these varying cultures, in some respects with good reason, form incredibly different opinions on certain issues to culture. So for example, someone brought up in Iran, is bound to have different stereotypes to us purely on the society (which are foundations for who we are) they’re from.

And I think people who say ‘blah blah should be sacked for this and that because I think its sick and wrong’ is dangerous. And I’m glad that we have laws in place which disregard personal views as to what is right and what is wrong. They have tendency to just take black and white issues into account. And that’s important, and your post above reinforces my opinion on this matter. With all due respect, what right have you got to say what’s sick and perverted?

That’s your opinion, and your more than entitled to it, but your opinion shouldn’t have any physical or material impact on someone else’s life. Which is how it is, and why we have laws in place like they currently are.

You also mention people in his position should be above getting caught etc. But once again, with all due respect, we’re all entitled to a private life, sure people in certain positions should be more careful if what they get up to is not the ‘norm’. But he did that, he hired out an apartment etc etc just for this. That’s more than good enough for taking care in activities. But considering he had people especially after him to catch him out, whatever he does, he was going to get caught no how careful he was. And in that respect that argument doesn’t stand.

[markabilly]

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but why should your opinion have more right than anothers.



Laws in place to make sure people aren't judged by stereotypes and given a fair chance.

To you, what he did was wrong, despite it being legal. But what you see as wrong is totally subjective to how you view life. Personally, its not my cup of tea, but I'm not one to judge him on it. I believe what he does in his private time is up to him. As long as its in line with the law.

what right have you got to say what’s sick and perverted?

.
Not illegal?????

You need to read the court opinion where the judge said the beatings were illegal but where they did not make enough noise, the authorities did not prosecute, therefore the judge in essence thought the activities to not be illegal enough.... but admits the offense could be prosecuted.....so whatever.

Then there is his elaborate discussion of brothel keeping, but since max was using his brothel for his own purposes and pleasure according to the judge, he could not be convicted......but he ignored the fact clearly noted elsewhere, that the whores testified to taking time to pleasure each other and so forth when not busy servicing MaX......but when it comes to women, well in the world of maX and the old judge of women as objects to be degraded and humilated, that don't count.

Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping.

Again illegal but ignored.

And as I said elsewhere, liquidating jews and enemies of the third reich, violated no German law and indeed, was the duty of those so ordered. Nothing illegal there.......of course they lost, so some of them were hung for "crimes against humanity", a fiction created under the equally fictitious idea of international law. It was a fiction because Germany had never signed any such treaty as would be necessary to create any obligation on the part of any german to obey such a nebulous law.
So there all of you go, imposing your view of what is right ot wrong on people, and then punishing them ex post facto......

me? i got no problem with hanging them, but it had nothing to do with any applicable law as to whether their conduct was legal or illegal. Under the logic of some posters here as well as that of the old judge, NO Nazi "war criminal" would have existed and none of the accussed could have been punished, as after all, they really did not do anything illegal.

And with MaX, it is not an issue merely of right or wrong, but how his admitted behavior calls into severe question his character for being fair and honest, and being able to rely on him for leadership and opinions that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill....the certain 'witch hunt" comments, and the claims asserted by some as to how unfair the puishment of MaC.

So while I think Mac got what they got because they deserved it, given Max's own testimony, one can no longer say that it was fairness that was the basis of the actions by maX and not some perverted desire to inflict pain and sufferring because he could not control RD sufficiently to his liking :confused:

[gloomyDAY]

The faster Mosley is out of the FIA, the better!

People here seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to the FIA. Remember it is the FIA, not F1A. There are other motor sports struggling because of Max's failure to be ubiquitous. I keep reading great points about what Max has done for F1, but nothing else.

To be honest, my interests lie primarily in the WRC, but I am also a fan of F1. There my bias is now out in the open. This is why I am fretting over the FACT that Ford, Citroen, and Subaru seem to be looking for a way out of the WRC. So far there hasn't been much action spurring the need to spend millions on a sport that's dead in the water.

Ford has not renewed their contract with M-Sport to rally in 2009, Citroen has been interested in contesting with German manufacturers in DTM, and Subaru almost made a split earlier this year when Max stated that the WRC should only have 2WD cars onstage.

Idiocy...

[ShiftingGears]

The faster Mosley is out of the FIA, the better!

People here seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to the FIA. Remember it is the FIA, not F1A. There are other motor sports struggling because of Max's failure to be ubiquitous. I keep reading great points about what Max has done for F1, but nothing else.

To be honest, my interests lie primarily in the WRC, but I am also a fan of F1. There my bias is now out in the open. This is why I am fretting over the FACT that Ford, Citroen, and Subaru seem to be looking for a way out of the WRC. So far there hasn't been much action spurring the need to spend millions on a sport that's dead in the water.

Ford has not renewed their contract with M-Sport to rally in 2009, Citroen has been interested in contesting with German manufacturers in DTM, and Subaru almost made a split earlier this year when Max stated that the WRC should only have 2WD cars onstage.

Idiocy...

:up:

It is sad to see WRC going downhill. It's the most versatile world championship out there, but its being hindered by FIA neglect.

[PolePosition_1]

:up:

It is sad to see WRC going downhill. It's the most versatile world championship out there, but its being hindered by FIA neglect.


Regarding the WRC. Can someone give me a quick overview of it?

Who holds the rights to WRC?

Because while I disagree the WRC is fast going downhill, I think its mainly to do with the commercial way its been handled?

Who controls what exactly in WRC?

[PolePosition_1]

Not illegal?????

You need to read the court opinion where the judge said the beatings were illegal but where they did not make enough noise, the authorities did not prosecute, therefore the judge in essence thought the activities to not be illegal enough.... but admits the offense could be prosecuted.....so whatever.

Then there is his elaborate discussion of brothel keeping, but since max was using his brothel for his own purposes and pleasure according to the judge, he could not be convicted......but he ignored the fact clearly noted elsewhere, that the whores testified to taking time to pleasure each other and so forth when not busy servicing MaX......but when it comes to women, well in the world of maX and the old judge of women as objects to be degraded and humilated, that don't count.

Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping.

Again illegal but ignored.

And as I said elsewhere, liquidating jews and enemies of the third reich, violated no German law and indeed, was the duty of those so ordered. Nothing illegal there.......of course they lost, so some of them were hung for "crimes against humanity", a fiction created under the equally fictitious idea of international law. It was a fiction because Germany had never signed any such treaty as would be necessary to create any obligation on the part of any german to obey such a nebulous law.
So there all of you go, imposing your view of what is right ot wrong on people, and then punishing them ex post facto......

me? i got no problem with hanging them, but it had nothing to do with any applicable law as to whether their conduct was legal or illegal. Under the logic of some posters here as well as that of the old judge, NO Nazi "war criminal" would have existed and none of the accussed could have been punished, as after all, they really did not do anything illegal.

And with MaX, it is not an issue merely of right or wrong, but how his admitted behavior calls into severe question his character for being fair and honest, and being able to rely on him for leadership and opinions that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill....the certain 'witch hunt" comments, and the claims asserted by some as to how unfair the puishment of MaC.

So while I think Mac got what they got because they deserved it, given Max's own testimony, one can no longer say that it was fairness that was the basis of the actions by maX and not some perverted desire to inflict pain and sufferring because he could not control RD sufficiently to his liking :confused:

You think its correct for a man to lose his job over something which is technically illegal?

Your argument doesn't stand. Should a man be sacked from his job for eating an apple while in a traffic jam? Should a man be sacked for throwing a cigerrate on the floor?

The man was having consenting sex with escorts, its not my cup of tea, but its not illegal, as I've already said, neither is football, but I'm not going to sack someoone for enjoying football.

If the women consented to being humiliated (which is your opinion, I don't think they'd see it that way) - again he hasn't done anything wrong.

"Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping."

Can you link that for me please? I must be honest I didn't come across this point until now.

I must be honest, I find your English slightly hard to understand (not sure if English is your first language?) - but I think your making a point that nazism was legal back in 1940's as a basis for saying that the law isn't a good basis for judging what is right and what is wrong.

Well I've talked about this in a previous post, where at the end of the day, society shapes us. I don't want to get too deep, as could probably write a book on this, but society has come a long way in the last 70 years.

Using that as an argument, I could argue that 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls is acceptable, as it was back in the 1800s.

International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

But why does him enjoying S&M sessions in private not make him fair and honest in his work? I don't understand the connection?

Have you ever lied in your life? Presumably yes, does that make you dishonest and unfair?

And you say "that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill...."

I must ask you to source this please - being a Damon Hill fan I haven't come across this yet.

[AndyRAC]

Regarding the WRC. Can someone give me a quick overview of it?

Who holds the rights to WRC?

Because while I disagree the WRC is fast going downhill, I think its mainly to do with the commercial way its been handled?

Who controls what exactly in WRC?

Let's see; originally Bernie held the rights as the FIA Promotional boss, but paid little attention to the sport. However he owned ISC - which he sold to Dave Richards/Apax. At the moment I think North One Television own ISC.

As for going downhill, it's already at the bottom - a dead duck Championship with only 2-3 possible winners, lack of interest (apart from Finland), no variety, etc

[markabilly]

You think its correct for a man to lose his job over something which is technically illegal?

Your argument doesn't stand. Should a man be sacked from his job for eating an apple while in a traffic jam? Should a man be sacked for throwing a cigerrate on the floor?

The man was having consenting sex with escorts, its not my cup of tea, but its not illegal, as I've already said, neither is football, but I'm not going to sack someoone for enjoying football.

If the women consented to being humiliated (which is your opinion, I don't think they'd see it that way) - again he hasn't done anything wrong.

"Then there is the undisputed testimony from one of the "credible" whores of the theater in Euston where max financed a sex circus and actively participated in and monitored the collection of revenues, and that is brothel keeping."

Can you link that for me please? I must be honest I didn't come across this point until now.

I must be honest, I find your English slightly hard to understand (not sure if English is your first language?) - but I think your making a point that nazism was legal back in 1940's as a basis for saying that the law isn't a good basis for judging what is right and what is wrong.

Well I've talked about this in a previous post, where at the end of the day, society shapes us. I don't want to get too deep, as could probably write a book on this, but society has come a long way in the last 70 years.

Using that as an argument, I could argue that 40 year old men marrying 13 year old girls is acceptable, as it was back in the 1800s.

International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

But why does him enjoying S&M sessions in private not make him fair and honest in his work? I don't understand the connection?

Have you ever lied in your life? Presumably yes, does that make you dishonest and unfair?

And you say "that are not based on some desire of maX to inflict pain and sufferring as so noted by Damon Hill...."

I must ask you to source this please - being a Damon Hill fan I haven't come across this yet.
go back and read the court opinion. read the posts about hill's comments on this forum. indeed, all the hypocrisy in the world, even with kool aid, is not enough to change it

you say:
International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

Well guess what? That ain't Max's view of how he wants things to be as demonstrated by his little parties through his own court testimony, and given his desire and success in dominanting others, well you will have to drop the hypocrisy to understand that character and judgment are determinations of the individual's morality.

And to say one thing in public, for example, condenming the spanish fan who "blackened up" while doing the opposite in private playing games where butts are beaten because they are a black and not blonde, and chanting we are the Aryans and all the rest, is about as extreme hypocrisy as you can find.
And by definition, hypocrisy is dishonesty, as is lieing and cheating on one's family for forty years and such private character like that results in public actions so aptly described by Hill as thus:
In a letter to F1's trade magazine Autosport, Hill spoke for many when he said: "To call him 'a certified halfwit' would be on the first level unkind, but on another level is nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim.
"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA.
"It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate."
Hill closed with a crushing flourish: "I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/kevingarside/2322764/Damon-Hill-defends-legend-Jackie-Stewart.html

[PolePosition_1]

go back and read the court opinion. read the posts about hill's comments on this forum. indeed, all the hypocrisy in the world, even with kool aid, is not enough to change it

you say:
International society has come into an era of respecting each ones humans rights (albeit its sometimes hard to believe that taking into account some of things which go on), and law in western countries (which is most similar to international law) are in general a pretty good guideline for what is wrong and right in a fair manner, as it disregards peoples race, religion etc. Which is the way it should be in my view.

Well guess what? That ain't Max's view of how he wants things to be as demonstrated by his little parties through his own court testimony, and given his desire and success in dominanting others, well you will have to drop the hypocrisy to understand that character and judgment are determinations of the individual's morality.

And to say one thing in public, for example, condenming the spanish fan who "blackened up" while doing the opposite in private playing games where butts are beaten because they are a black and not blonde, and chanting we are the Aryans and all the rest, is about as extreme hypocrisy as you can find.
And by definition, hypocrisy is dishonesty, as is lieing and cheating on one's family for forty years and such private character like that results in public actions so aptly described by Hill as thus:
In a letter to F1's trade magazine Autosport, Hill spoke for many when he said: "To call him 'a certified halfwit' would be on the first level unkind, but on another level is nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim.
"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA.
"It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate."
Hill closed with a crushing flourish: "I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/kevingarside/2322764/Damon-Hill-defends-legend-Jackie-Stewart.html

How is Max disregarding peoples human rights if the ladies punishing him are consenting to punishing him? I honestly don't see the logic in that.

And again, I respect that you value a persons committment in marriage, and that you think its wrong that he lied to her. But that shouldn't impact his professional life.

Marriage is a cultural institution at end of the day, it should not and luckily has not impacted his position in his job directly.

While your more than entitled to your opinion, what your judging him on is something subjective. And you can't punish someone on something which is subjective, and that we have laws.

Laws in place to make sure people aren't judged by stereotypes and given a fair chance.

To you, what he did was wrong, despite it being legal. But what you see as wrong is totally subjective to how you view life. Personally, its not my cup of tea, but I'm not one to judge him on it. I believe what he does in his private time is up to him. As long as its in line with the law (which is objective).

In other societys, its frowned upon what women are allowed to drive on public roads, in others they think its weird women have equal rights, in others they think its wrong to eat bacon.

All different parts of the world have different cultures (despite globalisation ). And people brought up in these varying cultures, in some respects with good reason, form incredibly different opinions on certain issues to culture. So for example, someone brought up in Iran, is bound to have different stereotypes to us purely on the society (which are foundations for who we are) they’re from.

And I think people who say ‘blah blah should be sacked for this and that because I think its sick and wrong’ is dangerous. And I’m glad that we have laws in place which disregard personal views as to what is right and what is wrong. They have tendency to just take black and white issues into account. And that’s important, and your post above reinforces my opinion on this matter. With all due respect, what right have you got to say what’s sick and perverted?

That’s your opinion, and your more than entitled to it, but your opinion shouldn’t have any physical or material impact on someone else’s life. Which is how it is, and why we have laws in place like they currently are.

You also mention people in his position should be above getting caught etc. But once again, with all due respect, we’re all entitled to a private life, sure people in certain positions should be more careful if what they get up to is not the ‘norm’. But he did that, he hired out an apartment etc etc just for this. That’s more than good enough for taking care in activities. But considering he had people especially after him to catch him out, whatever he does, he was going to get caught no how careful he was. And in that respect that argument doesn’t stand.

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70223

Very interesting article here.

[ioan]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70223

Very interesting article here.

Bernie and the game about more money!

[Mark]

Quick change of position since he didn't manage to get rid of him! He was his best mate all along :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Quick change of position since he didn't manage to get rid of him! He was his best mate all along :laugh:

That's the way I read it.

Problem with Max and Bernie is that they can never use a mirror.

Not that they can't see their reflection but because the time it takes light to reflect back, they have changed their stance :D

[PolePosition_1]

I don't see the problem is what he is saying, he admits he has changed his position, and why, and its honest.

I've always liked and respected Bernie, because he is honest, he doesn't BS around. He's straight to the point.

I don't always agree with him, but its rare to agree with everything someone says. At the end of the day, he's one of the main if not the main guy of why F1 is like it is today.

And that article reinforces my opinion of him. Which is a positive, although many would argue its negative.

[markabilly]

I don't see the problem is what he is saying, he admits he has changed his position, and why, and its honest.

I've always liked and respected Bernie, because he is honest, he doesn't BS around. He's straight to the point.

I don't always agree with him, but its rare to agree with everything someone says. At the end of the day, he's one of the main if not the main guy of why F1 is like it is today.

And that article reinforces my opinion of him. Which is a positive, although many would argue its negative.

Honest???
It is called me and Max done made a deal, and the real deal is what we sure are not going to tell you guys, but since money talks, we are talking on how we can both get richer.

At the end of the day, he's one of the main if not the main guy of why F1 is like it is today. now that is the best reason right there to be rid of Bernie and maxie, but you guys deserve them I guess.

[PolePosition_1]

Honest???
It is called me and Max done made a deal, and the real deal is what we sure are not going to tell you guys, but since money talks, we are talking on how we can both get richer.

At the end of the day, he's one of the main if not the main guy of why F1 is like it is today. now that is the best reason right there to be rid of Bernie and maxie, but you guys deserve them I guess.


I don't quite understand, do you see how F1 has changed from the 1970's to present day as bad or good?