Max isn't going to be even less popular.....

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm

I think a lot of people are going to get nicely wound up over this one. Apparently the patron saint of all things fine and dandy isn't as good as some think :)

[janneppi]

I don't really se the what the big fuss should even be about it, Max is pretty much spot on in his commets about Hamilton.
Has Hamilton drawn controversy? Yes
Will it happen next year? Most likely.
Are there comparisons to be draw to how MS was seen? Absolutely.

[Daniel]

I like my title :mark: Max is going to be even less popular is what it should read.

I agree he's pretty much spot on but you forget Max is the devil and whatever he says is automatically wrong ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

I don't really se the what the big fuss should even be about it, Max is pretty much spot on in his commets about Hamilton.
:up: If - and it's a big if because the likes of Alonso and Raikkonen will have something to say about it - Hamilton goes on to dominate in the way MS did between 2000-2004 then people (casual viewers more than genuine enthusiasts) will turn off. F1 is exciting when there is unpredictability, and that is what we have had this year.

I think Max is a little premature with his comments, but it's a measure of the impact Hamilton has already made on the sport that this is even being mentioned.

[Daniel]

:up: If - and it's a big if because the likes of Alonso and Raikkonen will have something to say about it - Hamilton goes on to dominate in the way MS did between 2000-2004 then people (casual viewers more than genuine enthusiasts) will turn off. F1 is exciting when there is unpredictability, and that is what we have had this year.

I think Max is a little premature with his comments, but it's a measure of the impact Hamilton has already made on the sport that this is even being mentioned.
Not really. It's just a measure of how hysterical the media have been over him.

[BeansBeansBeans]

It's hardly a controversial opinion. If Lewis goes on to dominate the sport like Schumacher did, it will have a negative effect. Whether he has the ability to do so is a matter of opinion.

[BDunnell]

I agree that there's little or nothing to argue about in these comments. What F1 needs is an increase in the number of teams and drivers that are capable of winning races. How this happens is a matter for much debate.

Once again, though, I'm rather fed up with this assumption that everyone who praises Hamilton without mentioning any of his failings or mistakes automatically thinks he can do no wrong.

[ArrowsFA1]

it's a measure of the impact Hamilton has already made on the sport that this is even being mentioned.

It's just a measure of how hysterical the media have been over him.
Daniel, we're saying the same thing. Whether it is the results on track, or column inches, Lewis Hamilton has made a big impact on the sport.

What is perhaps controversial are MM's comments re: the "spy-gate" saga, and more particularly McLaren's 2008 car. He's already talking about the team being "given a negative point allocation" before the car has been built or examined.

In addition he being rather disingeneous when he says in response to a question about the possibility of Hamilton having knowledge of the Ferrari info: "It would be surprising if he didn't know something of what was going on, but I've got absolutely no evidence that he had. On that basis it would be wrong of me to suggest that he had." Funny that Max, your first sentence appears to suggest you think he had, and your last says you would be wrong to suggest he had :crazy:

Just as Ferrari are "still seething (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63682)" it seems Max is like a dog with a bone :dozey:

[BDunnell]

"It would be surprising if he didn't know something of what was going on, but I've got absolutely no evidence that he had. On that basis it would be wrong of me to suggest that he had."

Reminds me of some posts on here...

[Daniel]

I think perhaps he hasn't worded it well. I don't think it's a direct accusation at all. Just a statement that he finds it hard to believe that all this happened in the team without Hamilton somehow being involved. But if you want to see it as an accusation then fine :)

[BDunnell]

I don't see it as an accusation at all. I think it's a deeply confusing statement, which is rather unlike him.

[Daniel]

I don't see it as an accusation at all. I think it's a deeply confusing statement, which is rather unlike him.
I agree it is a little. But as with anything we need to use our powers of comprehension and rather than just accept a comment at face value we have to draw our own conclusions from it. That's not a thinly veiled insult or anything. It's just that people take things a little too literally. We all could consider ourselves guilty of that at some point in time :)

[ArrowsFA1]

I think perhaps he hasn't worded it well. I don't think it's a direct accusation at all. Just a statement that he finds it hard to believe that all this happened in the team without Hamilton somehow being involved.
That's fair enough. Where I have a problem is with Max raising it yet again when the FIA have ruled on the matter. Max may have wanted (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451) the drivers excluded from the WDC, in addition to the penalty imposed on McLaren, but that was not the verdict of the FIA hearing.

[Mark]

His comments would be justified if Hamilton had dominated this year but I think he didn't notice that he finished 2nd!

[Daniel]

That's fair enough. Where I have a problem is with Max raising it yet again when the FIA have ruled on the matter. Max may have wanted (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451) the drivers excluded from the WDC, in addition to the penalty imposed on McLaren, but that was not the verdict of the FIA hearing.
Yes but Bernie wouldn't have had that and you know it. Choose which devil you want to support :)

On one hand you could reasonably argue that Max was just continuing a vendetta against Ron OR you could say that Bernie was using his clout to stop "justice" taking place.

Which is the lesser of the two evils or are they both as bad as each other?

[ArrowsFA1]

Choose which devil you want to support :) Which is the lesser of the two evils or are they both as bad as each other?
It's not about that for me. It's about the sport I have followed for 30yrs, and I think that sport has been damaged this year. Now we can (and have!) discuss/argue/debate about the reasons for that, but IMHO in this instance Max Mosley is wrong.

The FIA have made their judgement regarding spygate. A further judgement will be made regarding McLaren's 2008 car in due course, and there is a hearing scheduled to hear McLaren's appeal regarding the Williams & BMW fuel issue.

MM's recent comments merely stir up spygate, and in some respects pre-judge McLaren's 2008 car, and the fuel appeal. It is not the role of the FIA President to act like this, and I think MM is mistaken in doing so.

[Daniel]

It's not about that for me. It's about the sport I have followed for 30yrs, and I think that sport has been damaged this year. Now we can (and have!) discuss/argue/debate about the reasons for that, but IMHO in this instance Max Mosley is wrong.

The FIA have made their judgement regarding spygate. A further judgement will be made regarding McLaren's 2008 car in due course, and there is a hearing scheduled to hear McLaren's appeal regarding the Williams & BMW fuel issue.

MM's recent comments merely stir up spygate, and in some respects pre-judge McLaren's 2008 car, and the fuel appeal. It is not the role of the FIA President to act like this, and I think MM is mistaken in doing so.
Yes the sport has been damaged but whose fault is that. Max wasn't the one with the dossier and the team who were using information from it and Nigel Stepney.

[ArrowsFA1]

Yes the sport has been damaged but whose fault is that. Max wasn't the one with the dossier and the team who were using information from it and Nigel Stepney.
My point is that the FIA, headed by Max Mosley, have already made their judgement on that. If Max, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't appove of the outcome then tough.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

His comments would be justified if Hamilton had dominated this year but I think he didn't notice that he finished 2nd!

I agree. I doubt that any of the current drivers will dominate as much as Schumacher did because there is so much more talent around now. (No offence to Coulthard or Hakkinen fans) Having lots of strong drivers can only be good for the sport.

[Daniel]

My point is that the FIA, headed by Max Mosley, have already made their judgement on that. If Max, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't appove of the outcome then tough.
Did he say he was appealing? I once got a short term ban on a forum from one mod and then another PM'ed me to say that if it was up to them I'd have been perm banned. Which is fair enough. It was their individual and that's fine. If it was up to me I'd have had them banned totally for 2 years as well. It's my opinion and nothing more than that.

[555-04Q2]

I dont see why people say domination is bad. Tiger dominates golf and his domination has led to increased interest in the sport from young fans and old. Federer dominates tennis (as other have done in the past) and the sport is the better for it. Why is motorsport seen in the opposite light :?:

P.S. Max is a complete idiot :(

[BDunnell]

I dont see why people say domination is bad. Tiger dominates golf and his domination has led to increased interest in the sport from young fans and old. Federer dominates tennis (as other have done in the past) and the sport is the better for it. Why is motorsport seen in the opposite light :?:

P.S. Max is a complete idiot :(

Some would say that golf has suffered in the Tiger Woods era, as a result of courses increasingly favouring those who are able to strike the ball a long way. However, the standard of competition and excitement hasn't been harmed by Tiger's domination in the same way as those attributes were damaged in F1 by Schumacher's domination. It was impressive, but when he was dominant, there's no question the spectacle of the sport was damaged. This is not to say, of course, that his domination was in any way wrong, or undeserved, or his or Ferrari's 'fault'. The rules probably weren't conducive enough in various ways to producing a better spectacle. But it is a fact that such domination can often be dull in sport. I'm sure there are plenty of tennis fans who agree.

[ChrisS]

Mad Max said something sensible. how can this be?

[VkmSpouge]

Seems a sensible point by Mosley, any driver that would have Schumacher like dominance of the sport would make F1 more boring (or should that be the inability of anyone else to challenge them?). Anyway no one actually showed any consistent dominance throughout the 2007, all four lead drivers had races where they were beyond anyone else but none of them sustained that through the season. In that respect I hope 2008 will be the same.

[ioan]

What is perhaps controversial are MM's comments re: the "spy-gate" saga, and more particularly McLaren's 2008 car. He's already talking about the team being "given a negative point allocation" before the car has been built or examined.

What part of:


...or IF it does we will then have to consider taking some sort of action.


is controversial?

He covered both cases:
1. the design is free of Ferrari influence
2. the design contains Ferrari influence

His comments on the whole were as objective as possible.

[ioan]

MM's recent comments merely stir up spygate, and in some respects pre-judge McLaren's 2008 car, and the fuel appeal. It is not the role of the FIA President to act like this, and I think MM is mistaken in doing so.

I suppose he had to answer the questions the journo was asking during the interview. ;)

[ioan]

Some would say that golf has suffered in the Tiger Woods era, as a result of courses increasingly favouring those who are able to strike the ball a long way. However, the standard of competition and excitement hasn't been harmed by Tiger's domination in the same way as those attributes were damaged in F1 by Schumacher's domination. It was impressive, but when he was dominant, there's no question the spectacle of the sport was damaged. This is not to say, of course, that his domination was in any way wrong, or undeserved, or his or Ferrari's 'fault'. The rules probably weren't conducive enough in various ways to producing a better spectacle. But it is a fact that such domination can often be dull in sport. I'm sure there are plenty of tennis fans who agree.

It always depends from one's POV.
I didn't find MS' and Ferrari's dominance bad at all. And given that most of the F1 supporters are Ferrari supporters I doubt that their dominance was a bad thing per all.

[Daniel]

It always depends from one's POV.
I didn't find MS' and Ferrari's dominance bad at all. And given that most of the F1 supporters are Ferrari supporters I doubt that their dominance was a bad thing per all.
Wrong! Regardless of who you support, most people just want to see good racing.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Wrong! Regardless of who you support, most people just want to see good racing.

:up:

[BDunnell]

I would suggest that any impartial F1 observer would agree that the racing was pretty dreadful for several years during Schumacher's dominant period. There's nothing controversial about this view. It made for a dull spectacle.

Daniel is absolutely right in saying that most people want to see good racing. This is not provided by one driver being dominant, no matter who that driver is. Very often, the competition behind that driver is less than enthralling, too.

[Daniel]

I would suggest that any impartial F1 observer would agree that the racing was pretty dreadful for several years during Schumacher's dominant period. There's nothing controversial about this view. It made for a dull spectacle.

Daniel is absolutely right in saying that most people want to see good racing. This is not provided by one driver being dominant, no matter who that driver is. Very often, the competition behind that driver is less than enthralling, too.
Glad someone agree with me for once :)

We all support a driver or a team but 99% of us are not zealotastically tribal about it and we enjoy. The other 1% will not enjoy a good race when it happens simply because the result is not how they'd like it.

[ArrowsFA1]

I suppose he had to answer the questions the journo was asking during the interview. ;)
That's very true, and a point well worth making :up: but talking about "a negative point allocation" in advance , and his comments regarding Hamilton's knowledge of the emails, are, in my opinion, misjudged.

When he says:


"Finding something will not be easy...there are sources we are going to deploy who will give us as good a chance as its possible to have to find it."
That's a bit like saying 'we'll keep digging until we find something, and (rather like the FIA rules) "an idea" could be anything the FIA decides.

[wedge]

Wrong! Regardless of who you support, most people just want to see good racing.

Very true. A lot of people have the view that the 2004 season was very boring because Ferrari dominated the championship but actually there was some very good racing that year.

[Daniel]

his comments regarding Hamilton's knowledge of the emails, are, in my opinion, misjudged.

Well I'm glad we have people like yourself to even out the Ioan's absurd bias with their own :)

Apparently Max isn't allowed to have an opinion. I can undestand if Hamilton was penalised on the basis that Max thinks he benefited but he wasn't. Max simply says he feels that Hamilton wasn't as innocent as portrayed and why not? It's his opinion! He hasn't let it influence the decisions made so lay off the guy!!!!

I just don't get why having a bonafide Mega-Star performer, be it Schumi or potentially Hamilton, can be bad for the sport.

If I'm not mistaken Renault, Honda, Toyota, BMW and Jaguar all joined Formula One during the era of Schumachers dominance. I'm not sure how that can possibly result from Formula One not being attractive.

Since when has having a worldwide phenomenon being bad for the image?

Now, not having a household name to sell, that can be detrimental. Just look at ChampCar.

[ArrowsFA1]

Apparently Max isn't allowed to have an opinion. I can undestand if Hamilton was penalised on the basis that Max thinks he benefited but he wasn't. Max simply says he feels that Hamilton wasn't as innocent as portrayed and why not? It's his opinion! He hasn't let it influence the decisions made so lay off the guy!!!!
Max Mosley himself has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63335):

"It is the role of the FIA to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors."
In my view that means that he, as President of the FIA, should ensure that is seen to be done. I don't believe that his recent comments achieve that.

[Daniel]

Max Mosley himself has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63335):

In my view that means that he, as President of the FIA, should ensure that is seen to be done. I don't believe that his recent comments achieve that.
Caroline's cat is called Sybil :cheese:

And while we're not just listing unrelated facts. I should point out that Max has no proof and didn't punish Hamilton just because he thought he was involved.

Countless judges have said "I strongly suspect you committed the crime but there is no proof so you will go free" so why should Max be any different? What's the deal? Is it because he is Max? Is it because of what he said about JS? Is it because it was McLaren? Is it because he said it about Golden/Wonder Boy? Because there is no real reason to be irked about the comment.

[BDunnell]

Well I'm glad we have people like yourself to even out the Ioan's absurd bias with their own :)

Apparently Max isn't allowed to have an opinion. I can undestand if Hamilton was penalised on the basis that Max thinks he benefited but he wasn't. Max simply says he feels that Hamilton wasn't as innocent as portrayed and why not? It's his opinion! He hasn't let it influence the decisions made so lay off the guy!!!!

That part of Mosley's comments I too thought was misjudged. Sorry, but the President of the FIA, a highly-trained lawyer after all, shouldn't start talking about what he believes to be the case in a situation where there is no evidence to back up what he thinks. He would be laughed out of court if he tried to present that as a reason for prosecution, and surely would know better than to try and do so.

[Daniel]

That part of Mosley's comments I too thought was misjudged. Sorry, but the President of the FIA, a highly-trained lawyer after all, shouldn't start talking about what he believes to be the case in a situation where there is no evidence to back up what he thinks. He would be laughed out of court if he tried to present that as a reason for prosecution, and surely would know better than to try and do so.
Yes but he DIDN'T try to use that as evidence.

You know if you came to my house and beat my head in with a baseball bat that would be a bad thing.

Thanks for stating the obvious........

[BDunnell]

Yes but he DIDN'T try to use that as evidence.

You know if you came to my house and beat my head in with a baseball bat that would be a bad thing.

Thanks for stating the obvious........

But in this case we're talking about something that he thinks 'must have happened'. In his position, he should know better than that, and he should be able to do better than that. If he wants to present evidence, fine, but clearly he can't.

[Daniel]

But surely "thinking" something falls within the bounds of "having an opinion" which he's allowed to have.

As long as his opinions don't become the basis of evidence against a team or driver then it's all good :)

[BDunnell]

But surely "thinking" something falls within the bounds of "having an opinion" which he's allowed to have.

As long as his opinions don't become the basis of evidence against a team or driver then it's all good :)

No it's not, because I don't think that the FIA President continuing to perpetuate something that is totally unproven is 'all good'. Of course he can have opinions, but I believe that this one should best remain unspoken.

[Daniel]

No it's not, because I don't think that the FIA President continuing to perpetuate something that is totally unproven is 'all good'. Of course he can have opinions, but I believe that this one should best remain unspoken.
Lets agree to disagree :)

[ioan]

But surely "thinking" something falls within the bounds of "having an opinion" which he's allowed to have.

As long as his opinions don't become the basis of evidence against a team or driver then it's all good :)

J. Stewart has the right to an opinion.
M. Mosley doesn't have the right to have an opinion.

What's that difficult to understand :?: :D

[ArrowsFA1]

J. Stewart has the right to an opinion.
M. Mosley doesn't have the right to have an opinion.

What's that difficult to understand :?: :D
Which of those two is supposed to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. :?: :D

[BDunnell]

J. Stewart has the right to an opinion.
M. Mosley doesn't have the right to have an opinion.

What's that difficult to understand :?: :D

That is not the case at all. Mosley is the President of the FIA. He should know better than to make an unsubstantiated allegation about an actual, and very serious, case in public. I have no problems with him offering his opinions on other matters — indeed, I said earlier in this thread that I agree with his view of the risk of F1 becoming boring in the case of Hamilton domination, and I was pleased to see him not being afraid to hold back on giving a very controversial opinion about historic racing in a recent magazine interview. The latter comments won't have won him many friends, but I was glad that he was prepared to make them. However, the McLaren scandal is different, because of the seriousness of stating that, in effect, someone must have done something because he believes they did even though there is no proof. I don't think that specific comment is acceptable for a man in his position. If Jackie Stewart was still a team boss and he made those comments, I'd think they were equally ill-judged for a man in his position.

I hope that makes my view clear, ioan. Maybe you will answer me this. Say this scandal had involved Ferrari and its drivers rather than McLaren, it had proceeded in exactly the same way, and Mosley had just said that he thinks Massa must have known about the documents and what they contained even though it was never proved. Would you really be saying that he's entitled to his opinion? I think you would probably be saying that he should keep his opinions to himself because there isn't any proof.

[Hondo]

That's very true, and a point well worth making :up: but talking about "a negative point allocation" in advance , and his comments regarding Hamilton's knowledge of the emails, are, in my opinion, misjudged.

When he says:


That's a bit like saying 'we'll keep digging until we find something, and (rather like the FIA rules) "an idea" could be anything the FIA decides.

Max probably already has a charge and specification drafted accusing McLaren of using 4 devices called tires in the same manner and for the same purpose as the Ferrari design in the documents.

[Hondo]

It always depends from one's POV.
I didn't find MS' and Ferrari's dominance bad at all. And given that most of the F1 supporters are Ferrari supporters I doubt that their dominance was a bad thing per all.

I agree there was nothing evil in Ferrari's dominance at all. The Ferrari Team did a better job than the others. The other teams had as much opportunity to excel as Ferrari did and didn't get the job done. Many of them were also using the same old bunch of journeyman drivers that couldn't get it done then and still can't now. If you didn't like the Ferrari dominance, flog the other teams and drivers, not Ferrari.

[ioan]

Max probably already has a charge and specification drafted accusing McLaren of using 4 devices called tires in the same manner and for the same purpose as the Ferrari design in the documents.

:laugh: Good one! :up:

[ioan]

Which of those two is supposed to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. :?: :D

You can't take away one's right to his/her own opinion, no matter your personal opinion about that person! :p : :D

[passmeatissue]

What I worry about is, ***why*** did he do the interview to start with? Not for fame or money, anyway. To change attitudes and expectations??

A few signs...

It might not be a bad thing for Lewis not to be too successful.

McLaren cheated in 2007.

Lewis was probably at least a bit guilty too.

McLaren have probably cheated on their 2008 car, so expect a points penalty when we find something that might distantly involve an idea someone at Ferrari had.

:bigcry:

[ioan]

What I worry about is, ***why*** did he do the interview to start with?

Because he was asked to?
I hope you aren't insinuating that he went to them and proposed to give them an interview!

[passmeatissue]

Max being the kind of gentle soul who finds it hard to say "no" :)

[wmcot]

In response to a few points mentioned in this thread:

1. I think Max is playing lawyer games with his linking Hamilton with the investigation. Max believes there is a strong probability that Lewis learned something from the data since the other drivers were sharing it. He can't prove it in court, so he does the most damage he is able to by using the media. It happens all the time when court cases don't go the way one party thinks they should. It's not right, but it is common and should be taken as such.

2. As far as MS dominance (or potential LH dominance) there have always been drivers and teams that dominate for a period. The potential is always there as long as one team gets things right and the others don't quite get it. Look at Mercedes in the early days of GP racing - they would often finish 10 - 15 minutes ahead of the "competition!" 2004 was not a good season IF you only look at the top steps of the podium! Don't forget that it was also the year that BAR/Honda were doing an excellent job and Button and Sato were scoring well! Other teams were also having good years, but because Ferrari were exceptional that year, we forget about the rest. 2002 was the same scenario.

3. It sounds to me like Max is getting fed up with having to be "politically correct" while everyone else is throwing opinions around. He's not my favorite person, but he is in an unpaid position and does take a lot of grief from every side. Perhaps he feels it's time for him to stop holding it all in. I may not like him much, but I sure wouldn't want his position!

[BDunnell]

Because he was asked to?
I hope you aren't insinuating that he went to them and proposed to give them an interview!

If he was, which he clearly wasn't, it wouldn't be the worst comment ever made on here.

[truefan72]

I was going to post a comment on Max's comments but I see the thread has gone bye the usual direction

To Janeppii,
suffice to say that Max while entitltes to his opinion, sees fit to downplay a drivers achievements and single out te potential negative aspects of said driver;s continued rise. IHO does he think Kubica and Rosberg would have a) filled in the wins and podiums and b) provided the same PR impact that LH provided?

The rest of his comments and the usual direction this thread has taken precludes me from even a worthwhile comment... back to hibernation ;)

[BDunnell]

To Janeppii,
suffice to say that Max while entitltes to his opinion, sees fit to downplay a drivers achievements and single out te potential negative aspects of said driver;s continued rise. IHO does he think Kubica and Rosberg would have a) filled in the wins and podiums and b) provided the same PR impact that LH provided?

Rosberg might have gone some of the way to doing so. He seems like an extremely intelligent and eloquent chap by modern F1 standards. But I don't think he would have had quite the same impact as Hamilton.

By the way, I agree that it is a shame that Mosley singled out the negative aspects. Very good point.

[Hawkmoon]

I was going to post a comment on Max's comments but I see the thread has gone bye the usual direction

To Janeppii,
suffice to say that Max while entitltes to his opinion, sees fit to downplay a drivers achievements and single out te potential negative aspects of said driver;s continued rise. IHO does he think Kubica and Rosberg would have a) filled in the wins and podiums and b) provided the same PR impact that LH provided?

The rest of his comments and the usual direction this thread has taken precludes me from even a worthwhile comment... back to hibernation ;)

Given a car as good as the MP4-22 in their rookie season there's every likelihood that Rosberg, Kubica or Vettel could have put in a similar performance to Hamilton.

I doubt they would have generated the column inches that Hamilton did because they aren't British and the F1 press centered in Britain.

[passmeatissue]

Hamilton's problem with Max is just that he's Ron's protege. Anyone know how Ron and Max originally first fell out? 20 years or more ago.

[DazzlaF1]

Its odd though, Schumacher's dominance from 2000 to 2004 was bad for F1 (in a way) but did Max ever moan then like he is now, NO, so why now? Has'nt his mouth got him into enough trouble already (oh wait a minute, he's "President of the FIA" he cant be touched)

[janneppi]

I was going to post a comment on Max's comments but I see the thread has gone bye the usual direction

To Janneppi,
suffice to say that Max while entitltes to his opinion, sees fit to downplay a drivers achievements and single out te potential negative aspects of said driver;s continued rise. IHO does he think Kubica and Rosberg would have a) filled in the wins and podiums and b) provided the same PR impact that LH provided?

I think Rosberg could have won a few rounds with that McLaren and that would have made him a popular in at least Germany, Kubica too would have done well I think.
Hamilton really isn't bigger than Jeesus anywhere else than in UK.


Rosberg might have gone some of the way to doing so. He seems like an extremely intelligent and eloquent chap by modern F1 standards. But I don't think he would have had quite the same impact as Hamilton.
Piquet junior would have made an impact or two. :p :


By the way, I agree that it is a shame that Mosley singled out the negative aspects. Very good point.Or did the journalist decide not to include the positives into the article deeming them not contoversial enough?

[pino]

With Kimi and Massa driving for Ferrari...there's no chance that Hamilton will kill/make boring the Champ ;)

[truefan72]

With Kimi and Massa driving for Ferrari...there's no chance that Hamilton will kill/make boring the Champ ;)

agreed

so why is Mosley stressing that point when it hasn't happened yet

he seems to be going out of his way to downplay the achievements for whatever reason

If asked about kimi, would he say that it isn't really a big deal and that if he wasn't there that the likes of Rosberg and Kubica could have won the WDC themselves.

The simple fact is that we will ever onkw hypotheticals and suppositions
what we do know are the results and the media/marketing frenzy over LH

why does he not stick to that accord.
Methinks that his obvious disdain for RD has influenced his decision making capabiliy and really isn't fit for the job.

You cannot function has a head of a governing body when you express and display such obvious contept and disdain for team's Director, therby influencing your opinions and judgement towards that entire tema, its dricers and employee's

Max really needs to go

[aryan]

Does the boss of the governing body of a sport have to go on and make comments like this?

Can't he just shut up and not make controversial comments, to preserve an air of objectivity?

Why does he have to do an interview every other day anyway?

Oh well... I guess it's too much asking a known facist sympathiser and the son of a Nazi supporter to just "shut the fcuk up!"

[aryan]

It always depends from one's POV.
given that most of the F1 supporters are Ferrari supporters.

huh?

So Ferrari supporters just like Ferrari to win, they don't like any exciting competition. Is that what you are saying?

[aryan]

Apparently Max isn't allowed to have an opinion.

NO HE IS NOT. He is like the Queen, he SHOULD NOT express his personal opnions because he is the head of the governing body, controlling the sport.

Think of how admirably Queen Elizabth has done her role in the past 50+ years, she has oversaw more than 50 prime ministers in all her realms during her reign, and is yet to express any of her ideas on any political matter or any of her governments, and has always been supportive of her governments. There are people who know that she absolutely disliked Tatcher and thought her programmes would lead to a socially divided UK, but she never brought up her concerns in public. During the Quebec seperation referundum in 1995, she did not take sides, even though a part of her realm was possibly going to be separated. During the 1975 Australian crisis, again she refused to criticise either the Australian government or her Governor General. She doesn't take sides, and doesn't express her political opinions simply because she is the head of state.

Max is in a very similar sort of state, regarding motorsport. I wish he could learn a number of things from his Queen.

[aryan]

Because he was asked to?



Which again brings me back to my analogy.

Do you know the number of interview requests which the queen receives?

Do you know how many of them she answers to?

There are positions in the world, for which you are better of making yourself inaccessible, if you want to remain a respected impartial judge.

[ArrowsFA1]

You can't take away one's right to his/her own opinion, no matter your personal opinion about that person! :p : :D
Max Mosley is FIA President. That's a fact not an opinion.

Of course he is entitled to a personal opinion like anyone else, but his role is to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. As such he has to exercise more restraint than others in expressing that opinion.

His recent comments show a singular inability to exercise that restraint to the extent that his fairness and impartiality is rightly being brought into question.

[fandango]

As WMCot said in an earlier post, Max is playing lawyer games. He pretends to be this "head of state" FIA president, and then when it suits him he acts like he's the owner of a private club where he makes up the rules as he sees fit.

I think this is cowardly and pathetic, and I don't understand how any journo worth his/her salt could avoid asking Max if he thinks he himself has helped or damaged F1, and if he can back up his answer with examples. It just doesn't become the President of any sporting association to express an opinion about a competitor in public. Imagine a member of the IOC doing the same.

Perhaps we should have a poll here along the same lines. What do you think of Max Mosley's contribution to F1, Good, Bad or Neutral?

[jas123f1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm

I think a lot of people are going to get nicely wound up over this one. Apparently the patron saint of all things fine and dandy isn't as good as some think :)

I think Max is ok this time.
But I believe that there is not any risk that Hamilton will dominate F1, especially not if Alonso doesn't continue at McLaren. I’m still thinking that without Alonso hadn’t McLaren been that successful. As every one knows it doesn’t help to be a good driver in a less good team. English press did forgot that, when they made Lewis to their new racing star. But I think that Ron Dennis it shelf was the reason that McLaren didn’t get any of the titles this season, not driver’s and not either constructor’s and now Ron "thanks Kimi" for his loyal work at McLaren during many years through his complaining. That way Ron has also destroyed Kimis WDC-party because now every one has now to wait until 15 November .. What a joke...

As a FORMER McLaren fan I have to say that all my sympathies for McLaren are gone.. Nothing left .. They are spying, lying, favouring, complaining and losing because of that.

:hmph:

[Daniel]

Max Mosley is FIA President. That's a fact not an opinion.

Of course he is entitled to a personal opinion like anyone else, but his role is to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. As such he has to exercise more restraint than others in expressing that opinion.

His recent comments show a singular inability to exercise that restraint to the extent that his fairness and impartiality is rightly being brought into question.
Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

There is no evidence at all that he's let personal opinion influence decision making. Oh I forgot you're just a member of the public and can rattle off whatever ill conceived rubbish you want and Max should just sit there and say nothing of what he believes. If the boot was on the other foot and he was slagging off a Ferrari driver I wonder if you'd be so vocal of his rather non-controversial words. You'd be building them up to be as damning as possible towards the non-Hamiltonians.

[BDunnell]

Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

There is no evidence at all that he's let personal opinion influence decision making. Oh I forgot you're just a member of the public and can rattle off whatever ill conceived rubbish you want and Max should just sit there and say nothing of what he believes. If the boot was on the other foot and he was slagging off a Ferrari driver I wonder if you'd be so vocal of his rather non-controversial words. You'd be building them up to be as damning as possible towards the non-Hamiltonians.

Daniel, I don't think it's good form to accuse another forum member of lying because he expresses an opinion that differs from yours. In fact, I think it's damn rude.

[ArrowsFA1]

Lies, lies, lies and more lies.
Is he not the FIA President? Should he not ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors? Should he not exercise restraint in his role as President with regard to his own personal opinions?

[ioan]

Max Mosley is FIA President. That's a fact not an opinion.

Of course he is entitled to a personal opinion like anyone else, but his role is to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. As such he has to exercise more restraint than others in expressing that opinion.

His recent comments show a singular inability to exercise that restraint to the extent that his fairness and impartiality is rightly being brought into question.

His last comment was a perfectly objective one where he very diplomatically answered a bunch of questions that were searching to bring up some intrigue that is good to publish.

Just because he doesn't have his head up Hamilton and RD's a$$, like many do have it around here, it doesn't mean he isn't objective. :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

Daniel, I don't think it's good form to accuse another forum member of lying because he expresses an opinion that differs from yours. In fact, I think it's damn rude.
I think it's a complete lie to insinuate that this comment that Max made has anything to do with the rules are being respected and being enforced fairly. I don't mind being rude to someone if they're misrepresenting the situation and twisting things for effect. Max simply stated that he would have done it to the letter of the law (Remember Toyota's cheat turbo in the WRC) and would not have left them with a fine and the chance of taking a driver to the WDC. What's wrong with that? How is that not respecting the rules?

[Daniel]

Is he not the FIA President? Should he not ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors? Should he not exercise restraint in his role as President with regard to his own personal opinions?

He's the FIA president? WTF? Please accept my apologies! I thought he was just a famous facist's son. :confused:

Yes he should and has done so.

Yes he should and has done so other than the fact that he was talking about goldenboy so reason goes out the window and fanboism is the norm. If this was any other driver he was talking about it wouldn't be such a big deal.

[ArrowsFA1]

I think it's a complete lie to insinuate that this comment that Max made has anything to do with the rules are being respected and being enforced fairly. I don't mind being rude to someone if they're misrepresenting the situation and twisting things for effect?
We differ in that I feel no need to be rude to someone over a difference of opinion.

My view, and the point I am making, is I do not feel that the FIA President should be commenting on issues that have already been decided upon (Hamilton's knowledge or otherwise of what was going on), or have yet to be judged (the fuel appeal & McLaren's 2008 car), in the way he has.

That's all. You disagree. Fine.

[Daniel]

We differ in that I feel no need to be rude to someone over a difference of opinion.

My view, and the point I am making, is I do not feel that the FIA President should be commenting on issues that have already been decided upon (Hamilton's knowledge or otherwise of what was going on), or have yet to be judged (the fuel appeal & McLaren's 2008 car), in the way he has.

That's all. You disagree. Fine.
That's not what you were trying to insinuate when you said this


Should he not ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors?

and that's what I had an issue with.

I can handle a difference of opinion on whether he should talk about these things. That's fine. But trying to lump these comments in with being unfair with the rules is way off the mark.

[ArrowsFA1]

That's not what you were trying to insinuate when you said this...
I used that quote because it was something Max Mosley had said himself (I provided the link earlier) and it is my belief that in his role as FIA President he should not be making the kind of comments he has recently, particularly in the context of everything that has gone on this season.

[Daniel]

I used that quote because it was something Max Mosley had said himself (I provided the link earlier) and it is my belief that in his role as FIA President he should not be making the kind of comments he has recently, particularly in the context of everything that has gone on this season.
In the context of everything that's gone on this season Max looks even fairer...... You would expect that the FIA would ban McLaren fully from the championship if their main man is making statements which show he wanted harsher penalties for McLaren. If he believed Hamilton was involved you would think he'd go out of his way to get Hamilton removed from the championship but he hasn't.

The fact remains that the rules have been implemented fairly and justly other and others would argue that the FIA has favoured Hamilton in all of this ;) Frankly I don't care as 2nd is just first loser and the right man won the title.

If Max was so anti McLaren and Hamilton then why did these things happen?
1. Hamilton getting assistance from a crane when he went off into the kitty litter and got away with it.
2. The whole pace car thing.
3. Hamilton (and Alonso) being allowed to drive this season with McLaren
4. Hamilton using one set of tyres too many and getting no real penalty.

I'm not trying to say the wrong thing was done in each of these situations but you couldn't accuse the FIA of being harsh on Hamilton and at the end of the day Max has shown that he's been able to keep his personal opinions out of it. If Max had let any opinions actually get in the way of decision making I could agree with you but I simply can't.

[pino]

I think it's a complete lie to insinuate that this comment that Max made has anything to do with the rules are being respected and being enforced fairly. I don't mind being rude to someone if they're misrepresenting the situation and twisting things for effect.

Daniel, a personal comment/opinion is never a lie, you have your personal comments/opinions, others have theirs. Accept it, and never again call liar someone who has differents opinions than you !

[Daniel]

Daniel, a personal comment/opinion is never a lie, you have your personal comments/opinions, others have theirs. Accept it, and never again call liar someone who has differents opinions than you !
Not trying to pick a fight here :)

So if someone infers that someone is biased against a driver and that the rules aren't enforced properly and fairly yet there is a history of that person being let off for offences then what is it? :mark: I didn't mean to insinuate that Arrows himself is a pathological liar or something like that. Just that his statement was logically incorrect (a lie in the logical sense). If I was to say on the forum that 2 + 2 = 3 then someone would be perfectly entitled to say that my statement was a lie.

I understand the word "lie" can have a very serious meaning but it can also just mean that someone is saying something that's not true.

Arrows. I apologise if you took it to be a personal remark. It was only in regards to the statement which doesn't seem to fit in with the facts :)

Perhaps "untrue" or "incorrect" would have been a better choice of words.

[passmeatissue]

Lies, lies, lies and more lies.

There is no evidence at all that he's let personal opinion influence decision making.

Oh? Well where to start...The context - a long-standing hostility with Ron dating back to his March days, Max & Bernie vs. Ron & Frank, involving rival magazines. Long-standing friendship with di Montezemolo, and lining up Todt to succeed him...

Renault threatening on Michelins, changed the measurement method on the front tyres
Changed to one set of tyres per race
Changed back again
Mass damper, not even in the airstream, suddenly illegal
Got Michelin out altogether
Bendy wing points allowed
Moving floor points allowed
Illegal use of Italian Police data
Aero device on Ferrari wheels allowed

Sure I've missed a few others. Plus obviously the string of pro-Axis stewards' decisions within the culture he's fostered.

[Daniel]

Oh? Well where to start...The context - a long-standing hostility with Ron dating back to his March days, Max & Bernie vs. Ron & Frank, involving rival magazines. Long-standing friendship with di Montezemolo, and lining up Todt to succeed him...
Renault threatening on Michelins, changed the measurement method on the front tyres
Changed to one set of tyres per race
Changed back again
Mass damper, not even in the airstream, suddenly illegal
Got Michelin out altogether
Bendy wing points allowed
Moving floor points allowed
Illegal use of Italian Police data
Aero device on Ferrari wheels allowed
Sure I've missed a few others. Plus obviously the string of pro-Axis stewards' decisions within the culture he's fostered.
Moving floors allowed. Hmmmmmmmmmm another untruth :)

As I said if this anti-Hamilton bias was part of the decision making process then why has Hamilton in the eyes of some got away with a lot this year? :)

I think it's very easy to put everything down to Max but it's not as simple as that.

[passmeatissue]

Moving floors allowed. Hmmmmmmmmmm another untruth :)

As I said if this anti-Hamilton bias was part of the decision making process then why has Hamilton in the eyes of some got away with a lot this year? :)

I think it's very easy to put everything down to Max but it's not as simple as that.

Do not call me a liar. Especially when you don't read the post properly. I said "moving floor *points* allowed. If you want to disagree with that, do so with reference to Tech Regs paras 3.15 and 3.17. "the eyes of some" is not evidence. Also I'm not trying put to 'everything' down to Max, just a series of FIA decisions. Like too many ferraristi you haven't dealt with the argument, you pretended something different was said so you could find something to say without looking up any actual information.

[Daniel]

Sorry I skimmed. I never called you a liar though.... perhaps you skimmed my post? :) Why I am a Ferraristi? :mark:

[ArrowsFA1]

You would expect that the FIA would ban McLaren fully from the championship if their main man is making statements which show he wanted harsher penalties for McLaren. If he believed Hamilton was involved you would think he'd go out of his way to get Hamilton removed from the championship but he hasn't.
In a way I think you've highlighted the point I'm trying to make because it's as if Max, knowing he can't get what he wants, wants to let everyone know just what he would have done.

The FIA have ruled on Spygate. We all have our opinions on whether the judgement was appropriate, but the bottom line is the FIA have examined the evidence and made their ruling. It's done. The only thing left is for the FIA to examine McLaren's 2008 car.

What Max may have wanted to happen, or not, is now irrelevant and yet he has made his views quite clear since the verdict.

- "the only way to have a fair championship in 2008 would have been to exclude McLaren" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62705)
- "I would have taken all the points away from Hamilton and Alonso" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451)
- "it is a very minor punishment" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62395)
- "It would be surprising if [Hamilton] didn't know something of what was going on" - LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm)

I think the question is: having presided over the FIA's hearing, and verdict, should the FIA President be expressing these opinions? My answer to that is no.

[ArrowsFA1]

Arrows. I apologise if you took it to be a personal remark. It was only in regards to the statement which doesn't seem to fit in with the facts :)
No problem at all :) A healthy debate and exchange of views is what I'm here for. If we all agreed about everything it would be a very dull place :p :s mokin:

[passmeatissue]

Sorry I skimmed. I never called you a liar though.... perhaps you skimmed my post? :) Why I am a Ferraristi? :mark:

"another untruth"? Close enough.Maybe you just exhibit ferraristic behaviour, *still* dodging the unwelcome issues...

ferraristic

It's not 'Ferraristic', nor are supporters of Ferrari 'Ferraristas'.

We are Tifosi.

Now back on with the debate.

[Daniel]

In a way I think you've highlighted the point I'm trying to make because it's as if Max, knowing he can't get what he wants, wants to let everyone know just what he would have done.

The FIA have ruled on Spygate. We all have our opinions on whether the judgement was appropriate, but the bottom line is the FIA have examined the evidence and made their ruling. It's done. The only thing left is for the FIA to examine McLaren's 2008 car.

What Max may have wanted to happen, or not, is now irrelevant and yet he has made his views quite clear since the verdict.

- "the only way to have a fair championship in 2008 would have been to exclude McLaren" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62705)
- "I would have taken all the points away from Hamilton and Alonso" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451)
- "it is a very minor punishment" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62395)
- "It would be surprising if [Hamilton] didn't know something of what was going on" - LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm)

I think the question is: having presided over the FIA's hearing, and verdict, should the FIA President be expressing these opinions? My answer to that is no.
But lets be fair in examining the Spygate controversy I think his comments are fair. When cheating goes on to this extent the only good example of what should happen in the '95 WRC season with Toyota where the drivers were disqualified and their points stood but they weren't allowed to participate in the championship next year. So looking at it in a historic context the originally reported punishment of 2 years exclusion for the team should have been the punishment. Of course it's all opinion but I feel his opinion is a very justified one. Had McLaren's drivers taken the title they may have done so having benefitted from that data. Lets not get into it in depth again as we'll have a 500 post thread all about nothing again though :p

At the end of the day it's just an opinion and looking at this season you can't help but feel that if anything Hamilton has been lucky this year with the way decisions have gone compared to how they could have gone if someone was really against him and willing to put the boot in.

Perhaps it's just me but which would you have?

Person who keeps their opinions to themselves but fudges things behind closed doors.

Or

Someone who is truthful about their opinions and doesn't fudge things behind doors.

Now of course I couldn't honestly say that Max is either of those but you see my point? :)

[ioan]

Especially if it's an ex-moderator! :rolleyes:

[passmeatissue]

It's not 'Ferraristic', nor are supporters of Ferrari 'Ferraristas'.

We are Tifosi.

Now back on with the debate.

I love the Tifosi, passionate fans are the life of F1.

Ferraristi are those who will not recognise any evidence, however concrete and however clear, unless it is aligned with the Axis of Max's. Because their relationship with F1 is one-sided and unsporting, just a gang mentality, they cannot be given such respect.

[BDunnell]

Perhaps it's just me but which would you have?

Person who keeps their opinions to themselves but fudges things behind closed doors.

Or

Someone who is truthful about their opinions and doesn't fudge things behind doors.

Now of course I couldn't honestly say that Max is either of those but you see my point? :)

What we probably have is someone who does both, which is, in my view, worse than either option.

The rest of my opinion I gave several posts ago.

[BDunnell]

Ferraristi are those who will not recognise any evidence, however concrete and however clear, unless it is aligned with the Axis of Max's. Because their relationship with F1 is one-sided and unsporting, just a gang mentality, they cannot be given such respect.

:up:

What you describe is the sort of thing I absolutely cannot stand in these 'discussions'. There are differing opinions and then there is blind faith. The former are great. The latter adds nothing.

[ArrowsFA1]

Perhaps it's just me but which would you have?
I'd have a FIA President who keeps his opinions to himself and and doesn't fudge things behind doors :p

It's like the referee in a football game. If he does the job well you shouldn't notice him.

[ioan]

In a way I think you've highlighted the point I'm trying to make because it's as if Max, knowing he can't get what he wants, wants to let everyone know just what he would have done.

The FIA have ruled on Spygate. We all have our opinions on whether the judgement was appropriate, but the bottom line is the FIA have examined the evidence and made their ruling. It's done. The only thing left is for the FIA to examine McLaren's 2008 car.

What Max may have wanted to happen, or not, is now irrelevant and yet he has made his views quite clear since the verdict.

- "the only way to have a fair championship in 2008 would have been to exclude McLaren" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62705)
- "I would have taken all the points away from Hamilton and Alonso" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451)
- "it is a very minor punishment" - LINK (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62395)
- "It would be surprising if [Hamilton] didn't know something of what was going on" - LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7070564.stm)

I think the question is: having presided over the FIA's hearing, and verdict, should the FIA President be expressing these opinions? My answer to that is no.

In light of what happened this season Max is right. And Justice would have been made only if McLaren would have been. together with their drivers, thrown out of the 2007 and 2008 championships.

If that sits well or not with some fans biased POV shouldn't change what is right.

[ioan]

I'd have a FIA President who keeps his opinions to himself and and doesn't fudge things behind doors :p

It's like the referee in a football game. If he does the job well you shouldn't notice him.

You mean he should not note any wrongdoing, just let it be cause otherwise some biased fans might think it is wrong?! :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

"another untruth"? Close enough.Maybe you just exhibit ferraristic behaviour, *still* dodging the unwelcome issues...
Perhaps I don't have any alliances at all? Look at all of my few posts in the F1 forum and try and see who I support? I support good drivers and teams which do a good job and aren't proven to be involved in outright cheating. Fair play and good driving is where it's at for me. I'd rather pull my toenails out with pliers than get tribal and support one driver or team.

I stated clearly before that I wasn't trying to state that arrows was a liar and I (quite rightly) got a warning about it so felt I should use some less strong terms like "untruth:

[BDunnell]

In light of what happened this season Max is right. And Justice would have been made only if McLaren would have been. together with their drivers, thrown out of the 2007 and 2008 championships.

If that sits well or not with some fans biased POV shouldn't change what is right.

Right in your eyes. Not in everyone's.

As I have said countless times, not everyone who believes that McLaren have been unfairly treated is a McLaren fan. Not everyone who believes that Mosley's recent comments are misguided is a McLaren fan. Not everyone who praises Lewis Hamilton without also saying something negative about him is a McLaren/Hamilton fan. This isn't how having enthusiasm for F1 works. It's not all about 'fandom'. Nor is it how having views and opinions works. You don't always have to like one thing and be diametrically opposed to its opposite. Things aren't that black and white in everyone's world.

[Daniel]

I'd have a FIA President who keeps his opinions to himself and and doesn't fudge things behind doors :p

It's like the referee in a football game. If he does the job well you shouldn't notice him.
:arrows:

I didn't give you that choice! :p

If that be the case lets get that video ref from the RWC final ;)

[BDunnell]

You mean he should not note any wrongdoing, just let it be cause otherwise some biased fans might think it is wrong?! :rolleyes:

Biased fans? Who does that remind me of? ;)

One does not have to be biased in a different way to you in order to think differently to you.

It's like the referee in a football game.

And his decision is final?

And he cannot be argued with?

[Daniel]

Biased fans? Who does that remind me of? ;)

One does not have to be biased in a different way to you in order to think differently to you.
*scratches chin* nope I can't think of exactly what you're thinking of Ben ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

You mean he should not note any wrongdoing...
No. No. No. No.

[ioan]

Biased fans? Who does that remind me of? ;)

One does not have to be biased in a different way to you in order to think differently to you.

I know that I'm not perfect that's why I stopped pretending it! ;)

[ioan]

No. No. No. No.

No, he shouldn't/ Or no, he shouldn't not notice the wrongdoings? :)

If the later than I suppose that once he noticed than he should also punish them, and not let the commercial rights holder decide the punishment based on commercial reasons.

Let's be honest, Max did what he had to do and only Bernie stopped him from cleaning the F1 mess up. That's why we still have this scrutineering for the 2008 McLaren cars. Otherwise we would have had clean 2007 and 2008 seasons and than McLaren would have been back, and F1 would have had the image of a clean sport, or business.

[passmeatissue]

Perhaps I don't have any alliances at all? Look at all of my few posts in the F1 forum and try and see who I support? I support good drivers and teams which do a good job and aren't proven to be involved in outright cheating. Fair play and good driving is where it's at for me. I'd rather pull my toenails out with pliers than get tribal and support one driver or team.

I stated clearly before that I wasn't trying to state that arrows was a liar and I (quite rightly) got a warning about it so felt I should use some less strong terms like "untruth:

For most people "untruth" is more like "lie" than "mistake" though. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/untruth

My initial post was a list of evidence, after you said there wasn't any. So a good reply IMHO would have addressed those points.

But glad to accept you are not ferraristi :)

[ArrowsFA1]

No, he shouldn't/ Or no, he shouldn't not notice the wrongdoings? :)
You know what ioan, put whatever interpretation you like on the analogy :rolleyes: I'm past caring :wave:

[Daniel]

You know what ioan, put whatever interpretation you like on the analogy :rolleyes: I'm past caring :wave:
That's the spirit :D The spirit of I don't give a poo anymore :D

[BDunnell]

That's the spirit :D The spirit of I don't give a poo anymore :D

It is a shame, though, that the sensible voices and those who are able to enter into a meaningful discussion have to start feeling that way while those who... er, can't (for want of other expressions) can just carry on regardless.

[Daniel]

It is a shame, though, that the sensible voices and those who are able to enter into a meaningful discussion have to start feeling that way while those who... er, can't (for want of other expressions) can just carry on regardless.
Perhaps there's a negative correlation between intelligence and the ability to bang your head against a wall for days on end :)

[93VTEC]

You know what ioan, put whatever interpretation you like on the analogy :rolleyes: I'm past caring :wave: Well put. :up:

[ioan]

You know what ioan, put whatever interpretation you like on the analogy :rolleyes: I'm past caring :wave:

Oh, you took the easy way out of a discussion you started, not that I care either. :p :

[ioan]

Well put. :up:

Huge contribution to the debate. :rolleyes:

[Bagwan]

It is a shame, though, that the sensible voices and those who are able to enter into a meaningful discussion have to start feeling that way while those who... er, can't (for want of other expressions) can just carry on regardless.

Rather a one-sided statement you have there .

Ioan has his opinion , and I happen to agree .

Arrows can quit the debate any time he wishes to , but in no way strengthens his argument if he does .

I can understand there are 2 distinct sides here , as this has been a season to forget for some , and one to remember for others .

Those in the McLaren camp , ridden down by accusations , penalized heavier than ever before , and beaten at the wire by the arch rival , sit expecting no action to be taken on the appeal of the championship results .
That's hardly something that would put one in a good mood from the start .

Those in the Ferrari camp , feeling victimized , feeling the arch rival never should have been in the race to that wire , now feel aghast at the possibility that the title could be stripped on the 15th after feeling vindication at Kimi stealing the crown in the end .
I can't see this as putting them in a good mood either .


Both sides have strong feelings , and won't give in easily .
We haven't seen the last of Arrows .

[Bagwan]

By the way , can we change the title to what the poster meant to say ?
That is "Max IS" , not "Max isn't" .

Max didn't get what he wanted .
His saying so , shows he's as unhappy about this season as some of the rest of us .

It is a shame, though, that the sensible voices and those who are able to enter into a meaningful discussion have to start feeling that way while those who... er, can't (for want of other expressions) can just carry on regardless.

Whose sensible? Whose biased? Surely the answer to that is it depends on the viewpoint of the person making those judgements.

So whose to say the sensible ones have left the conversation?

It's equally valid, looking at this from another viewpoint, to say that as an alternative opinion those who cannot handle their view not being taken as gospel could be said to go off in a sulk?

[passmeatissue]

at this quote on F1-Live, discussing British press reaction to Max' interview...

"The Daily Telegraph added: 'Were he to have walked around the streets of London prodding infants with sticks yesterday, Mosley could not have caused greater offence to the British public.'"

:D

[truefan72]

Max Mosley is FIA President. That's a fact not an opinion.

Of course he is entitled to a personal opinion like anyone else, but his role is to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors. As such he has to exercise more restraint than others in expressing that opinion.

His recent comments show a singular inability to exercise that restraint to the extent that his fairness and impartiality is rightly being brought into question.

By far the best and most logical post regarding this matter


As WMCot said in an earlier post, Max is playing lawyer games. He pretends to be this "head of state" FIA president, and then when it suits him he acts like he's the owner of a private club where he makes up the rules as he sees fit.

I think this is cowardly and pathetic, and I don't understand how any journo worth his/her salt could avoid asking Max if he thinks he himself has helped or damaged F1, and if he can back up his answer with examples. It just doesn't become the President of any sporting association to express an opinion about a competitor in public. Imagine a member of the IOC doing the same.

Perhaps we should have a poll here along the same lines. What do you think of Max Mosley's contribution to F1, Good, Bad or Neutral?

I agree

furthermore, some people will believe whatever they believe for their own jaded purposes. Even if it is completely untrue, or undignified, or unbecoming of the president of the FIA. The comments made by him are in line with their own sentiments and therefore cannot see the error in MM's ways.

His backhanded actions have shown to be cowardly in the face of impartial oversight. They serve only to propel his own biased agenda.
He is operating well past his expiration date, and at times acts like he is some supreme demi-god over the sport. His actions are saddled with bias, personal feelings, poor judgement, and a pentiant for commenting without thinking first. He has certainly brought the sport into disrepute and basically has turned the FIA and his character into a laughing stock amongst his peers.
His comments aboiut Hamilton come off pseudo racist in my book. And even that isn't too surprising to me. But I have no evidence of this and hence to say this would be wrong!!!

[SGWilko]

What part of:


is controversial?

He covered both cases:
1. the design is free of Ferrari influence
2. the design contains Ferrari influence


Define influence. How can the FIA tell if it is influence because the part in question was openly on view in the public domain on the Ferrari car? And what did this dossier contain, was it this years or next years Ferrari.

The point is, of cours, if a team like Toyota lets say as an example, come up with a very similar solution on a component to McLaren. If the FIA say it is too Ferrari like on the McLaren, will Toyota start with a negative value in the constructors championship also? If not, then why not?

That is why I think the FIA are pi55ing in the wind when they reckon they can reliably determine if a component is a Ferrari concept or not. It is, in my book at least, ludicrous.

[ArrowsFA1]

Oh, you took the easy way out of a discussion you started, not that I care either.
Daniel began this discussion ioan, and I have decided not to participate any more because I've given my opinion, which people are free to agree or disagree with.

Arrows can quit the debate any time he wishes to , but in no way strengthens his argument if he does.
Absolutely :up:

...those who cannot handle their view not being taken as gospel could be said to go off in a sulk?
That's equally valid, but not true on my case. I don't expect anyone to take my view as gospel. It's just one opinion among many others.

[truefan72]

Arrows, BDunnell,

why do you even bother engaging in such back and forth with certain folks. No matter how many times you post or try to explain yourself, they will never come around.

they see F1 as warfare and employ a "either you are with us or you are our enemy" approach to communicating, rationalising and opinionating on all things F1. Most times they would look to agitate the situation guised under the "I'm entitled to my opinion" banner while trully serving only to continue whatever denigration of their "supposed" enemies, no matter the circumstance, messenger, relevance to the topic or untrue the comments may be.

I took the hard decision to place most of them on the ignore list and from time to time lift it to see if the rhetoric has lessened, but most get right back on that list.

It's hard to have any discusion here without being suckered into some sort of confrontation.

Let them be with their opinions and comments and come over to the greener pastures of a more pleasant discourse of F1

Arrows, BDunnell,

why do you even bother engaging in such back and forth with certain folks. No matter how many times you post or try to explain yourself, they will never come around.

they see F1 as warfare and employ a "either you are with us or you are our enemy" approach to communicating, rationalising and opinionating on all things F1. Most times they would look to agitate the situation guised under the "I'm entitled to my opinion" banner while trully serving only to continue whatever denigration of their "supposed" enemies, no matter the circumstance, messenger, relevance to the topic or untrue the comments may be.

I took the hard decision to place most of them on the ignore list and from time to time lift it to see if the rhetoric has lessened, but most get right back on that list.

It's hard to have any discusion here without being suckered into some sort of confrontation.

Let them be with their opinions and comments and come over to the greener pastures of a more pleasant discourse of F1

Or, in other words, let's ignore anyone we don't agree with.

That's not exactly discussing a topic.

[SGWilko]

His last comment was a perfectly objective one where he very diplomatically answered a bunch of questions that were searching to bring up some intrigue that is good to publish.

Just because he doesn't have his head up Hamilton and RD's a$$, like many do have it around here, it doesn't mean he isn't objective. :rolleyes:

Ioan, is it actually possible to insert ones head up two peoples rear ends at the same time?

[BDunnell]

Or, in other words, let's ignore anyone we don't agree with.

That's not exactly discussing a topic.

Not at all. It's just that there are ways of expressing an opinion, and the fact that, to be honest, certain opinions carry a bit more weight with me at least because, no matter what view the person takes, I know it's not based on blind likes/dislikes on the part of the poster. As I've stated before, the latter in particular is no basis for a discussion.

truefan 72 — I very much agree with you. However, for one thing, I don't know how to use the 'ignore' list, and for another, every discussion soon becomes infected with the usual partisan invective, so virtually every thread would go 'off-limits'.

[truefan72]

Or, in other words, let's ignore anyone we don't agree with.

That's not exactly discussing a topic.

Actually I disagree with a whole bunch of people just like you, but don't place them in an ignore list. It is reservered for those who seek to agitate, and continously post IMO comments that add little to nothing to the discusion.

There are even others who I simply have chosen not to respond to but do enjoy reading their comments for a variety of reasons.

Yes, and you make my point exactly. I do want to discuss the topic rather than get into trench warfare on fringe issues evoked to cause conflict.

[Daniel]

Not at all. It's just that there are ways of expressing an opinion, and the fact that, to be honest, certain opinions carry a bit more weight with me at least because, no matter what view the person takes, I know it's not based on blind likes/dislikes on the part of the poster. As I've stated before, the latter in particular is no basis for a discussion.

truefan 72 — I very much agree with you. However, for one thing, I don't know how to use the 'ignore' list, and for another, every discussion soon becomes infected with the usual partisan invective, so virtually every thread would go 'off-limits'.
http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/profile.php?do=editlist this might help Ben :)

[aryan]

I'd have a FIA President who keeps his opinions to himself and and doesn't fudge things behind doors :p

It's like the referee in a football game. If he does the job well you shouldn't notice him.

Very well said.

[aryan]

By far the best and most logical post regarding this matter



I agree

furthermore, some people will believe whatever they believe for their own jaded purposes. Even if it is completely untrue, or undignified, or unbecoming of the president of the FIA. The comments made by him are in line with their own sentiments and therefore cannot see the error in MM's ways.

His backhanded actions have shown to be cowardly in the face of impartial oversight. They serve only to propel his own biased agenda.
He is operating well past his expiration date, and at times acts like he is some supreme demi-god over the sport. His actions are saddled with bias, personal feelings, poor judgement, and a pentiant for commenting without thinking first. He has certainly brought the sport into disrepute and basically has turned the FIA and his character into a laughing stock amongst his peers.
His comments aboiut Hamilton come off pseudo racist in my book. And even that isn't too surprising to me. But I have no evidence of this and hence to say this would be wrong!!!


Don't see the corelation between your argument and the thread Bagwan. The gist of the discussion has been whether it's a wise idea for the President of FIA to be expressing such persoanl opinions, or whether as the head of the governing body of the sport, he should be keeping these to himself.

It's rather unfortunate that some Ferrari fans feel the need to be supporting Mr. Mosley just because of what happened during this season regarding spy-gate. It's rather peculiar cause I have seen many of the same Ferrari fans, criticise Mosley on some of his decisions previously.

No matter how many times you post or try to explain yourself, they will never come around.

Since when has discussing a subject had to have the conclusion that the other viewpoint comes round?

A forum is a place for opinions, not necessarily a place where those opinions can be changed, is it not?

Being partisan, or biased if you prefer (I'll happily acknowledge both 'faults'), does not lessen the value of an opinion. Loyalty is, by defintion, a requirement of a fan, is it not?

What I find strange is that those often claim not to be biased are very often not as objective as their own propaganda would led us to believe, would you not agree?


I do want to discuss the topic rather than get into trench warfare on fringe issues evoked to cause conflict.

Fair point.

It's rather peculiar cause I have seen many of the same Ferrari fans, criticise Mosley on some of his decisions previously.

Could it not be said that is an example of them being reasonably objective towards Mosley?

After all, if someone deserves criticism, shouldn't they get it? Likewise praise?

[truefan72]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/profile.php?do=editlist this might help Ben :)


good one Daniel

[truefan72]

Since when has discussing a subject had to have the conclusion that the other viewpoint comes round?

A forum is a place for opinions, not necessarily a place where those opinions can be changed, is it not?

Being partisan, or biased if you prefer (I'll happily acknowledge both 'faults'), does not lessen the value of an opinion. Loyalty is, by defintion, a requirement of a fan, is it not?

What I find strange is that those often claim not to be biased are very often not as objective as their own propaganda would led us to believe, would you not agree?



Fair point.


Yes I would agree,
but some things are fact, others are rules and yet others are clearly seen to be right/wrong beyond reproach, yet it is quite often the case in these threads that those matters get cast aside in favor of semantical arguments and partisanship

Yes, I do like LH, I am somewhat indifferent to RD and until recently rather favored Red Bull as the team I most supported. I do see fault in several of McClaren's actions, in the fumbling in the last 2 races, of how RD has been severly cocky over the years ( a bit more humble now) and how LH has made some mistakes that just might have cost him the WDC.

But over all I'd have to say that my entire outlook on F1 is not viewed through the lense of a particular team, or a particular driver. I don't hate anyone, I don't want drivers to crash out, or teams to get banished just so that it ensures a particular driver/teams win. I don't want to see the WDC won on appeal based on a minor infraction, and I certainly don't condone thinly veiled biased comments by the man who is supposed to oversee the series.

MM is free to express his opinions as long as he is not the president of the FIA. In an official capacity he needs to dispaly impartiality, dignity and above all reverance in his administration of the job. If all that is a bit too much for him, he should retire and feel free to lambast whoever he chooses.

But the man loves power, and it has corrupted him moraly.

But I welcome our dialogue tamburello :)

[Safeman89]

I just think all of this is further proof that Mosley supports Ferrari, and that he should do everyone in F1 a massive favour by resigning and disappearing from the sport completely

[Bagwan]

Max is the head of the FIA , not the jury before which McLaren will be appealing the fuel issue , nor all the delegates during the WMSC hearings .

He has made it clear that things have not gone the way he would have wished , showing clearly that he perhaps has somewhat less influence on affairs in F1 than some would assume .

He sounds as disgusted with the issue as some are with him .

[BDunnell]

Yes I would agree,
but some things are fact, others are rules and yet others are clearly seen to be right/wrong beyond reproach, yet it is quite often the case in these threads that those matters get cast aside in favor of semantical arguments and partisanship

Yes, I do like LH, I am somewhat indifferent to RD and until recently rather favored Red Bull as the team I most supported. I do see fault in several of McClaren's actions, in the fumbling in the last 2 races, of how RD has been severly cocky over the years ( a bit more humble now) and how LH has made some mistakes that just might have cost him the WDC.

But over all I'd have to say that my entire outlook on F1 is not viewed through the lense of a particular team, or a particular driver. I don't hate anyone, I don't want drivers to crash out, or teams to get banished just so that it ensures a particular driver/teams win. I don't want to see the WDC won on appeal based on a minor infraction, and I certainly don't condone thinly veiled biased comments by the man who is supposed to oversee the series.

MM is free to express his opinions as long as he is not the president of the FIA. In an official capacity he needs to dispaly impartiality, dignity and above all reverance in his administration of the job. If all that is a bit too much for him, he should retire and feel free to lambast whoever he chooses.

But the man loves power, and it has corrupted him moraly.

But I welcome our dialogue tamburello :)

I cannot add to that — including the last sentence.

I have no problems with differing opinions if they are presented sensibly. All too often, they are not.

[BDunnell]

I just think all of this is further proof that Mosley supports Ferrari, and that he should do everyone in F1 a massive favour by resigning and disappearing from the sport completely

For example, despite my views on some of Mosley's recent comments, I don't think this sort of thing is helpful. Neither is it founded in evidence or fact.

[Valve Bounce]

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

[Daniel]

For example, despite my views on some of Mosley's recent comments, I don't think this sort of thing is helpful. Neither is it founded in evidence or fact.
Especially when as I said before Hamilton seems to have had an "easy" time of it or at the very least hasn't been given a hard time. What is it in people that makes them able to ignore the big picture and draw a conclusion from one small incident that is balanced out by a lot of other things? :mark:

[wmcot]

NO HE IS NOT. He is like the Queen, he SHOULD NOT express his personal opnions because he is the head of the governing body, controlling the sport.

Think of how admirably Queen Elizabth has done her role in the past 50+ years, she has oversaw more than 50 prime ministers in all her realms during her reign, and is yet to express any of her ideas on any political matter or any of her governments, and has always been supportive of her governments. There are people who know that she absolutely disliked Tatcher and thought her programmes would lead to a socially divided UK, but she never brought up her concerns in public. During the Quebec seperation referundum in 1995, she did not take sides, even though a part of her realm was possibly going to be separated. During the 1975 Australian crisis, again she refused to criticise either the Australian government or her Governor General. She doesn't take sides, and doesn't express her political opinions simply because she is the head of state.

Max is in a very similar sort of state, regarding motorsport. I wish he could learn a number of things from his Queen.

So are you calling Max a "queen?" :)

[markabilly]

It must show the power of bernie that Max has survived this long

What is even funnier is how everyone here is arguing over exactly what constitutes that which they hate most about Max or what is his worse quality..........

In defense and as apologetic as I can be, I state in his defense that I think he is the very best practioner in formula one of those qualities and principles enunicated in the "the prince", so like the devil, should be entitled to some sympathy and respect :vader:

[aryan]

Could it not be said that is an example of them being reasonably objective towards Mosley?

After all, if someone deserves criticism, shouldn't they get it? Likewise praise?

Perhaps I should have elaborated. I've witnessed Ferrari fans criticising Max's character, not his decision per se. To Praise his character now is what comes around as peculiar to me.

[aryan]

So are you calling Max a "queen?" :)

No (god NO!), I was providing an analogy based on the fact that IMO both the head of the state* and the head of the governing body should remain apolitical.

*note: obviously this statement does not hold for countries whose head of state is the same as the head of governmt (e.g., USA).