F1

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:25:31 GMT

I've just read the Dodgins article in full, some interesting points in there, I wonder if Max is still convinced about Ferrari "A fundamental tradition in Ferrari is never to run outside the establishment"

I was trying to think who the picture of Max reminded me of, and its the actor Paul Nicholas!!

I also found the grapevine artcle interesting, particularly the sections on just what the "90's level of spending" really means, and the fact that the new CA FOTA presented to max which he claimed not to have time to go through was actually only a 15 page addendum if I've read it right.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:13 GMT

ZakspeedF1:
There's a good article about Max & Bernie's part in the FISA v FOCA wars in this weeks Autosport..

If you mean the Tony Dodgins article I've had a quick scan of that but will have a better look over the weekend, I particularly noticed though how he pointed out that Max had stated the teams would never set up a seperate series due to the fact that they wouldn't collectively donate a billion dollars, and yet he'd accused them of collectively spending exactly that sum "just to make their engines rev a bit quicker"

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

ZakspeedF1 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:54:32 GMT

There's a good article about Max & Bernie's part in the FISA v FOCA wars in this weeks Autosport..

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:31:38 GMT

ZakspeedF1:
My feeling now is that Tom Rubython is probably reliable - given that he is now Editor-in-chief at Sports Pro, which is a very respectable magazine. Also, I don't know how recent the articles that stigga posted are but, unless I've missed something (which is quite possible as I've had to speed-read the rest of the thread) they haven't been challenged by Max or the FIA.

As I've already said, I'd give him, the benefit of the doubt, his track record is certainly no worse than Max and/or Bernies, another point to consider is the fact that when Rubython has been sued by members of the FIA, its been over quite trivial (by comparison) matters, given that his article above contains some fairly explosive allegations/comments, its perfectly reasonable imo to question why anyone hasn't questioned what he alleges in a court of law, in fact not only has that not happened, he's been allowed paddock access again.

I think the article was written in December 2007.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:42:05 GMT

One mans or womans innocuous eh lol, I like to provide links where I can, but as with some posts, and pics, its pot luck whether they're allowed through so sometimes I dont bother.

As far as an EU enquiry goes, the Competition Commission did look at it in 1998, and it was expected that the FIA would be oredered to put the rights out to tender, but as the article says, Karel Van Miert was ousted as CC and a more sympathetic Commisioner took over.

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that in late 97 early 98 a court in Germany ruled that the tv rights to the European Truck Racing Cup (which were handed to Bernie along with the other rights) should be handed back to the series organiser, Max's response was to cancel the series, but when the court threatened him with a fine or prison sentence he releneted, he also announced at the time that if the EU decision went against the FIA, the marketing organisations and F1 itself would be moved out of Europe. In 2000, the EU Commission Directorate-General for Competition decided that the FIA’s practices were against European competition law.

What chance there is for another enquiry I wouldn't know, Max obviously found a way around things last time.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

ZakspeedF1 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:43:03 GMT

redfrog:

It's difficult to take any editors words at face value, there's always some agenda or other. Having said that I dare say theres some truth and half truths to what he wrote, along with a dose of journalistic freedom. The part I posted was from 2003, and stigga as since posted that Rubython as got his press pass back. I doubt Max or Bernie would like to have the truth out in the open, so even if some of it was not entirely truthful I dont think they would challenge it court.

SportsPro magazine is £15/issue (although probably a free subscription for sports industry insiders). As it is basically a trade magazine, rather than for public consumption, you would imagine that it wouldn't be keen to sacrifice its credibility by employing a seriously dodgy journalist. On the other hand, you can imagine that the chap clearly might feel some grievance towards the F1 ruling elite!

Also, some of the material is unattributed. I'm keeping an open mind for now but I wouldn't be shocked if the majority of it turns out to be true. We will find out in due course, I'm certain of that.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

redfrog — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:11:15 GMT

ZakspeedF1:
My feeling now is that Tom Rubython is probably reliable - given that he is now Editor-in-chief at Sports Pro, which is a very respectable magazine. Also, I don't know how recent the articles that stigga posted are but, unless I've missed something (which is quite possible as I've had to speed-read the rest of the thread) they haven't been challenged by Max or the FIA.

It's difficult to take any editors words at face value, there's always some agenda or other. Having said that I dare say theres some truth and half truths to what he wrote, along with a dose of journalistic freedom. The part I posted was from 2003, and stigga as since posted that Rubython as got his press pass back. I doubt Max or Bernie would like to have the truth out in the open, so even if some of it was not entirely truthful I dont think they would challenge it court.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

ZakspeedF1 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:35:02 GMT

My feeling now is that Tom Rubython is probably reliable - given that he is now Editor-in-chief at Sports Pro, which is a very respectable magazine. Also, I don't know how recent the articles that stigga posted are but, unless I've missed something (which is quite possible as I've had to speed-read the rest of the thread) they haven't been challenged by Max or the FIA.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

bingolingo — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:43:52 GMT

redfrog:
bingolingo:
redfrog:
stigga:
bingolingo:
ZakspeedF1:

There is a lot of explosive information there but how reliable is it? I'd never heard of the writer before but after a v. quick internet search...

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=27883

Although to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, it's one thing to state the truth, but it can be an entirely different thing to prove it in a court of law. Some people are very good at covering their tracks, and you only need an element of doubt in a court room and you're sunk.

Thats absolutely riight bingolingo, I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt over and above certain of the others mentioned in that article, but as you say, the merest benefit of doubt can lead to law suits failing even when they're 99.9% accurate.

I dont know just how much of the above is true, and obviously, given my stance on Max and the FIA it could be said that I'm looking at it only from one side, and as such I'm not proclaiming the article to be the absolute truth, my reason for posting it is to perhaps shed some light on the goings on in F1, and because it is imo a fascinating article, and one worthy of reading.

That is totally incorrect. The burden of proof required in the civil courts is a lot less than the beyond reasonable doubt required by the criminal courts. The civil courts only require that a case be prooved to be more probable than not.

It's true that Civil courts apply a lower standard of proof than criminal courts, which is also why one is more likely to win a libel case than defend one. Any element of doubt in the defendants case and it's lost. Which is exactly what I said.

Sorry.........bad day at work.......not a good excuse I know but heh

Heres something you might find interesting

MARCH 7, 2003

High Court denies journalist F1 pass

'); //--> Tom Rubython, the controversial former editor of Formula 1 magazine, has been out of the sport since October last year. Recently, however, he applied for passes for a new magazine called Business F1. The first edition of the magazine has apparently been published but it is only available in small numbers. Subscription is $432 a year for 12 issues ($36 an issue).

Rubython applied for three passes for the Australian Grand Prix but his application was declined by the FIA on the grounds that the publication did not meet the requirements for any pass. This decision was made by the FIA Press Delegate Agnes Kaiser. Rubython had applied for two journalist passes and a photographer's pass but these were refused on the grounds that the FIA does not accredit new magazines until they are proven; that the proposed circulation of 6,000 was too small and that the photographer was already accredited by another magazine.

Rubython challenged the decision and so the case went to the FIA's Director of Communications Richard Woods. It was rejected again on the grounds that the publication did not conform to the requirements for the accreditation procedures. Rubython then wrote to FIA President Max Mosley. Mosley verified with Woods that the procedures had been followed and replied accordingly.

Rubython then decided to take legal action to try to force the issue and applied to the High Court in London for an injunction to force the FIA to give him the passes. His action was against the FIA and Max Mosley personally.

The case was rejected on all grounds, leave to appeal was refused and costs which will run into thousands of dollars were awarded to the FIA. The decision sets an important precedent in that it confirms the FIA's right to enforce its own accreditation principles and procedure.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns08734.html

Given how well Tom must know Max and the goings on in the FIA I'm somewhat surprised by his approach. Based on his previous tangles, he must know he's a marked man and yet applies for a pass under his own name? Had that been me I think I would have left my name off the list to start with so as to avoid the possibility of any prejudices. But then to cap it all, despite the fact that almost everywhere you go, 'the management reserve the right to refuse entry' is an accepted standard, he challenges this authority in court. I'm not surprised he lost that one at all. Perhaps he's been out in the sun too long!

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

pedekay — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:30:24 GMT

stigga:
pedekay:

I dunno..... I must be losing my touch.

I did a reply to your first post, stigga, saying basically how amazing all this stuff about M&B was - I can't recall now exactly what I said. I thought it was harmless enough, but not the mods - it was not accepted. And I had another post rejected tonight too, which I also thought was harmless.

Reminds me of that saying about 'Today is not your day, and tomorrow's not looking good either.'

Rofl, here's a tip for you, particularly useful if you're thinking of posting a long or detailed post, type it out into notepad first, then you can copy/paste it into a post, if it gets rejected, just try again

Thanks, stiggy, I have done that before but thought my post was so short and innocuous I wouldn't bother this time, my mistake I guess.

Your posts are just so interesting, how people can have so much bare-faced cheek in pursuit of money! It's just amazing and a bit scary. Katie says that it seems like there should be an EU enquiry, which I would agree with. Is there any chance of that happening?

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

pedekay — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:14:24 GMT

redfrog:
pedekay:

I dunno..... I must be losing my touch.

I did a reply to your first post, stigga, saying basically how amazing all this stuff about M&B was - I can't recall now exactly what I said. I thought it was harmless enough, but not the mods - it was not accepted. And I had another post rejected tonight too, which I also thought was harmless.

Reminds me of that saying about 'Today is not your day, and tomorrow's not looking good either.'

I know how you feel ped, I have had a few posts not get through today. The one above yours was rejected 3 times ( well at least the article was )

Stiggys post is interesting reading

I think that perhaps some mods are more sensitive than others. But yes, the post is extremely interesting, and a bit shocking and worrying. There is no attempt to consider the interests of the fans in any of this manoeuvring, it's only about money.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:57:46 GMT

Tom Rubython was present at Monaco and in the paddock at Silverstone this year, whilst officially his readmission to the F1 paddock is said to be due to the fact that his latest magazine meets the FIA's criteria, in terms of accreditation, many suspect his return to the fold is actually part of Mosleys gameplan.

Pitpass 04/07/2008.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:50:30 GMT

bingolingo:
redfrog:
stigga:
bingolingo:
ZakspeedF1:

There is a lot of explosive information there but how reliable is it? I'd never heard of the writer before but after a v. quick internet search...

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=27883

Although to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, it's one thing to state the truth, but it can be an entirely different thing to prove it in a court of law. Some people are very good at covering their tracks, and you only need an element of doubt in a court room and you're sunk.

Thats absolutely riight bingolingo, I'd certainly give him the benefit of the doubt over and above certain of the others mentioned in that article, but as you say, the merest benefit of doubt can lead to law suits failing even when they're 99.9% accurate.

I dont know just how much of the above is true, and obviously, given my stance on Max and the FIA it could be said that I'm looking at it only from one side, and as such I'm not proclaiming the article to be the absolute truth, my reason for posting it is to perhaps shed some light on the goings on in F1, and because it is imo a fascinating article, and one worthy of reading.

That is totally incorrect. The burden of proof required in the civil courts is a lot less than the beyond reasonable doubt required by the criminal courts. The civil courts only require that a case be prooved to be more probable than not.

It's true that Civil courts apply a lower standard of proof than criminal courts, which is also why one is more likely to win a libel case than defend one. Any element of doubt in the defendants case and it's lost. Which is exactly what I said.

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

stigga — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:49:10 GMT

pedekay:

I dunno..... I must be losing my touch.

I did a reply to your first post, stigga, saying basically how amazing all this stuff about M&B was - I can't recall now exactly what I said. I thought it was harmless enough, but not the mods - it was not accepted. And I had another post rejected tonight too, which I also thought was harmless.

Reminds me of that saying about 'Today is not your day, and tomorrow's not looking good either.'

Rofl, here's a tip for you, particularly useful if you're thinking of posting a long or detailed post, type it out into notepad first, then you can copy/paste it into a post, if it gets rejected, just try again

Re: Max, Bernie and the FIA.

redfrog — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:46:37 GMT

pedekay:

I dunno..... I must be losing my touch.

I did a reply to your first post, stigga, saying basically how amazing all this stuff about M&B was - I can't recall now exactly what I said. I thought it was harmless enough, but not the mods - it was not accepted. And I had another post rejected tonight too, which I also thought was harmless.

Reminds me of that saying about 'Today is not your day, and tomorrow's not looking good either.'

I know how you feel ped, I have had a few posts not get through today. The one above yours was rejected 3 times ( well at least the article was )

Stiggys post is interesting reading