No question that the General Assembly will remind the president that the WMSC has to be elected. Not all the members are friends of Mr Mosley… I am pretty sure if we had access to internal documents we will see they were elected.

Now I agree with you on the fact that Mosley might indicate who he would like to be elected… but that has nothing different from ANY election, remember most of us vote for the MP, City Council, according to what the party we like tells us to vote for

After all nobody will be fool enough to ask the people to vote for his opponents

Subject to misinterpretation from the FIA President.

…or those whom he governs. Or presides, I should probably say. ’tis all.

I will have a post about this later in the week, but I’m snowed under at work at the moment and don’t have the time to do it justice. I hope to get it up before the Friday. Thanks for your patience. In the meantime, obviously feel free to add comment about the verdict (or non-verdict) here.

So the correct answer would appear to be “yes, and thank you for correcting me”. Sorry if I confused anyone.

The stubborn frenchmen would like to know (14 days later) if we all agree on the fact the WMSC is elected by the General Assembly as stated in FIA statutes article 9, and is not picked-up by the president as uncautiously stated by some here

The president has already many powers, it is really necessary to add some he didn’t have

A simple “yes” would be enough… this silence hurts me
Any contracdiction welcomed indeed

I hope you have noticed that my posts are trying to counterbalance a couple of things I have read and found unfair.

Of course, this is a discussion.

Oliver please correct me if I’m wrong as you have the documents in your mail.

Thanks Ago, I’m at work at the moment but I’ll have a read later when I get home.

Have a nice day, Kent is sunny today…hope the sun will be with you all!

It’s sunny in Southampton, but the summer has gone already. Still, I hope the sun will be out in Northern Italy at the weekend – at least I’ll be able to look at some nice weather.

I only have a short time here just now during lunch but I will deal with all you comments later.

The rule regarding wheels being on a car 3 minutes before the cars leave the grid was introduced after an Arrows mechanic called Dave Luckett jumped the pit wall to start the engine which one of his drivers (Patrese?) had stalled as the cars left the grid. Most of the other cars dodged round him but the other Arrows driven by Siegfried Stohr didn’t see Patrese’s car had stalled and hit the back of it at speed while Luckett was behind the car trying to start the engine. Fortunately he was not killed but there has to be a time cut off to stop competitive people putting themselves at severe risk.

Williams a few years ago at Spa left one of their drivers (Ralf/Montoya?) on jacks because they ran out of time. I have no problem with Kimi’s penalty in this case as it is there to stop cars hitting mechanics. A car from the back of the grid can be travelling at over 100mph by the time it reaches the front of the grid and as has been seen with many accidents over the years if a car is not moving at the front of the grid drivers have very little time to react to avoid them. For example in 1982 Riccardo Paletti was killed when he ran into the back of Didier Pironi’s stalled Ferrari.

The nationality stuff is not about judging anybody behaviour it is only to analyse what people say in a given context. I have very much respect for Pat Symonds. I am only saying that if he was a Ferrari Tech director, or if one of his pilots was involved he will voice his opinion differently. So will anybody else, it is not just him. Alain Prost was fired from Ferrari the day he dared to compare the Ferrari to a lorry… Needless to say that was not welcomed in Maranello might it be true or not.
I hope you have noticed that my posts are trying to counterbalance a couple of things I have read and found unfair. I am making no judgement only trying to soften the picture. And sorry if my words are not carrying that feeling…
BTW I have sent to Olivier the exact statement and references for the Spa incident. Under no circumstance are the stewards refering to “gaining unfair advantage”… Oliver please correct me if I’m wrong as you have the documents in your mail.
Have a nice day, Kent is sunny today…hope the sun will be with you all!

But let’s come back to the subject. I felt I had to react to some of the things I could read here on 3 subjects.

1. Lewis move at the chicane is not fair and many drivers of many teams were punished in the past for such a behaviour. I can give you a list if required. That said I do not believe he deserves to loose this win.

2. Ferrari is not “the devil in disguise” it is a very legendary team, the only one to built their engine (and almost everything else) the only one to run a successful business of road cars for now more than 50 years. How can somebody seriously believe they are a bunch of cheaters and liars. They are fierce competitors and they will use all the rules by the book to win.

3. The FIA is not what many people say it is. The stewards are not as bad as many say they are. It is a fact that depending on who is your favourite you (we!) often forget about the decisions they took against the other competitor. Nobody for example seems to discuss the very strange fact that last year in Hungary they had put their nose in a private McLaren matter (quali in Hungary). In more than 30 years of watching the sport I have no other memory of this kind of thing ever happening… Nobody talks much about this drive through penalty Kimi had for not having his wheels attached to the car 3mn before race start in Monaco (I think it is Monaco). What was wrong with that? If that happens to Lewis get ready to see the UK marching to protest in front of the FIA HQ in Paris

… and last Steven you cannot suspect almost anybody linked to Ferrari and then “save” a couple of them Fiorio, Lauda because they have an advice that suits you. Some other might have come to the opposite conclusion without being cheaters. Trulli said Lewis gained advantage, I believe that too, sorry I am not the “bad guy” only a true fan with a different point of view. And watch the onboard footage from premiere.tv you will see for yourself where the proper trajectory is in that chicane. Lewis takes it, Kimi takes it, evrybody takes it… but not Lewis in lap 41

I have given Alianora a link to this debaste. She knows the FIA rules and structures far better than anyone I have ever found so no doubt she will answer your specific points when she turns up although she did answer my question by saying Max picks the senate.

Nationality is irrelevant. We must judge things on the facts. As it I happens I consider myself to be Scottish and not British. Historically Scotland has much deeper ties to France than England and at one time any Scotsman had automatic French nationality and vice versa. As I am sure you are aware we Scots have never been the biggest fans of the English so if I am defending an Englishman that must mean something especially as like many of my countrymen I am a fan of all things Brazilian but I don’t think Massa should gain from a bad decision. Either that or nationality is irrelevant to me which is actually the case.

As I said before Cesare Fiorio an Italian who was Sporting Dirctor of Ferrari was incensed by the decision. Niki Lauda an Austrian who drove for both teams clearly isn’t a fan of the stewards. Becken posted either here or at F1 Fanatic that since the decison by the stewards new Lewis Hamilton fans are popping up all over Brazil. Nationality in this matter is utterly irrelevant. People’s opinions should be judged on their merits not by which country issued their passport.

I thought that all FIA rules/regs/codes were written in both English and French, because the two recognised languages of the FIA are French and English. Therefore, isn’t there a French version you could read…?

The most important character in that whole paragraph is the question mark. If it were a statement, there wouldn’t be a question mark.

all F1 documents are in english Ago.

The present rules have been drafted in French and in
English. In case of a difference of interpretation, the
French text shall take precedence. Rules of the FIA International Court of Appeal – published on: 01.02.2008.

Appologies for thinking that the rules were written in both languages, but I hope you understand why I thought that. Do you get my point about ambiguity now?

BTW tell me what nationality Pat Symonds is…

And as you will be already well aware Ago, I have no part in any comment regarding the nationality of any particular person in Formula One, the F1-blogosphere or otherwise. While I may describe someone as “the Finnish driver” or “Ross Brawn, a man who loves a well-developed British garden”, prejudice because of nationality has no part in my mind. This is because all the people of the world are all the same. I do hope the same ideal is instituted in all. I do appreciate your smilies, but I just wish nationality wasn’t brought into so many of your comments, completely unnecessarily. Honestly, who gives a flying fish where Symonds comes from? I don’t. He’s good at his job and a well-respected man.

I wish you a good night, good sir.

So the FIA have some texts in english (most of them as far as I know) and some in french (the Code Sportif International) all F1 documents are in english.

While we are at that, and to break the neck of another tale, FIA is NOT subject to french laws (no matter the FIA HQ are in Paris) it is subject to Swiss laws. In other words if one wants to challenge the FIA textbooks he must go to Swiss Courts.

To come back to the subject, these are FIA statutes (like the Constitution for a country) so the way the FIA is designating its bodies, coucils and commissions must be cristal clear. In my eyes the article 9 is perfectly clear and the president cannot name people because the article 9 says they must be elected, and for sure a lot of people with sue the FIA if it was not applying its own rules. Some of you have challenged me on something (extract of article 9) where I believe you made an error on the use of the verb “to choose”. I don’t see anything open for interpretation in the FIA statutes, the interpretation only rises if you don’t read the FULL text
Because the objections to my sayings were so quick I was expecting an as quick approval, or maybe another denial?,
You know… the cartesian frenchmen love the challenge

Last, but not least go to french, italian blogs you will see that this massive support of Lewis is not necessarily there There is a world outside the UK… To be a bit blunt the feeling is more that Lewis pushed his luck a bit too far but I can confirm, from what I have read, that a lot of people believe the penalty was a bit harsh and this is what I believe too… as Kimi was not absolutely clean on that matter either

BTW tell me what nationality Pat Symonds is… Not sure disagreeing with common british feeling will be really a smart move Also if instead of Kimi it was Alonso not sure he will tell the same story… Open your eyes guys
Good night to you all

So to answer your question about clarification: I haven’t bothered to check, but your English is perfectly fine. Well, it’s a lot better than my French, anyway.

Edit: As all the teams will say, any rule is open to interpretation if it is written that way.

Edit Edit: I thought that all FIA rules/regs/codes were written in both English and French, because the two recognised languages of the FIA are French and English. Therefore, isn’t there a French version you could read…?

Oliver? Steven? Alianora,any clarification? Or is my english that bad that I made a wrong interpretation of the rules

I should have more sense that post that without checking witch Alianora. I now have her informed opinion and she says in the comments here http://formula1home.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=469&sid=73260b434ba26cf0c59abe82547ee334 that Max appoints the Senate which actually makes more sense since the Senate approves other appointments. So in effect Max appoints everyone.

OllieEdit: Because of issues surrounding the CMS behind BlogF1, Steven’s comment here went into the spam bin and thus is out of context with the following comments due to it arriving late in the flow of posts. Sorry Steven, I shot you over an email.

This is racing, this is what we want.

I agree. I’m posting Symonds’s views tomorrow because I feel they’re important, and I’ve had a couple of drinks this evening in sunny Southampton! But essentially, in my honest view, the man speaks sense. We want racing, Kimi and Lewis provided it, and they both did what they felt to be fair. I’d hazard a guess and say 51% of worldwide fans felt it was fair as well. (The moves, not the penalty.)

From the top of his reputation, He expressed in a good, clear and fluent English what EVERYBODY around the world already knows and wants to state about the incident:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70457

“…To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I’ve had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.

“Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn’t have a big slide, he didn’t have to correct it, he hadn’t gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn’t that much later that Raikkonen went past him.

“This is racing, this is what we want.”

I like Mr. Whiting, he has a very friendly and admirable character in the F1 world, but FIA put him in a very fragile spot now. What I fear is that the teams cannot be confident on his judgment again after all this mess…

This is actually a very good point.

Are the Stewards accessible to be contacted for any member of any team while a racing is happening?

I doubt it too, and they should be. If the teams feel the need to contact race control to ask about something that he cannot officially decide on, then the stewards should be available.

Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, the stewards cannot make decisions very fast.

Are the Stewards accessible to be contacted for any member of any team while a racing is happening? I doubt if this procedure is in the ruler book. If it is NOT in the ruler book, I think that the ONLY person who could evaluate this sort of issue in the heat of the moment is, in fact, Charly Whiting…

I like Mr. Whiting, he has a very friendly and admirable character in the F1 world, but FIA put him in a very fragile spot now. What I fear is that the teams cannot be confident on his judgment again after all this mess…

The International sporting code states in its paragraph 141 that:

“The stewards of the meeting shall have supreme authority for the enforcement of the present Code, of national and Supplementary Regulations and of programmes. They shall settle any claim which might arise during a meeting, subject to the right of appeal provided in the present Code (see Chapter XIII).
? They shall decide what penalty to enforce in the event of a breach of the regulations.(…)

The job of the Race Director is specified in the F1 Sporting code as the International Sporting Code article 134 (b) says :

“A race director may be designated for the entire duration of each Championship, Cup, Trophy or Challenge.
If so, his duties and responsibilities will be set out in the relevant sporting regulations”

So the F1SR in his articles 12.3, 12.4, 12.5 says what the Race Director is responsible for. I am not going to quote that here you can see it for yourself, but -trust me- he has no responsability in terms of penalties whatsoever… this belongs to the stewards as stated in ISC article 141

I am very surprised that Martin Whitmarsh doesn’t know about that…
So conspiracy or blattant ignorance

Article 9
The General Assembly shall have sovereign rights. Its main terms of reference shall be the following:
(…)
4) To elect for 4 years, by an absolute majority a list which shall consist of:
(…)
? 7 vice Presidents of the FIA for Sport from among the candidates for the World Motor Sport Council proposed by the FIA member clubs holding the sporting power;
5)To elect for 4 years by a simple majority of the votes cast:
(…)
ii) the 14 members of the World Motor Sport Council, other than the members by rights and the 7 vice Presidents elected on the successful list.

So do we all agree now on facts
PS: (…) means I have removed the other parts to make this post as short as possible.

(to be continued, if Olivier says this is what he wants?)

As long everyone remains respectful to one another you guys can discuss until the cows come home!

Side note: this post has become the most commented on BlogF1. And that was Ago’s 100th comment here.

You wrote “the president of the FIA choose the members of the WMSC”
NO he DOES NOT.

There are 2 WC one for Sport (WMSC) one for Automobile Mobility and Tourism. The president chooses the one he wants to chair NOT the one he wants to select the members I’m afraid when you read something you twist it your way

It it the article 14 that you should have read and posted here:
“The World Motor Sport Council shall consist of :
• the President of the FIA;
• the Deputy President;
• the 7 Vice-Presidents;
• the 17 Members;
a total of 26 Members who, with the exception of the President of the FIA, must represent an ASN having at least one event entered on the International Sporting Calendar of the current year, of whom 21, with the exception of the President, the Deputy President and the 3 Members by right, shall be of different nationalities.”

These people come from various ASN and countries as explicitely written. And you know why? To avoid CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
There are enough people to have a WMSC without people from the concerned parties whatever matter is submitted to them. A close look to the WMSC that issued the McLaren punishment last year will prove me right

Same with Donnelly: Didn’t it ever came to your mind that maybe this gentleman stopped making business with Ferrari BECAUSE he took these responsabilities???
Don’t always go for the dark side of things and the Big Ferrari Conspiracy… I know it’s convenient but… as I said the world is not black and white.

Until now these things you mention are not proved but the ECU is McLaren that is proved… without any doubt

(to be continued, if Olivier says this is what he wants?)

From October 2005, the President of the FIA may not serve more than two consecutive terms of office, subject always to Article 12.1.

Just to add that, while this is the best part of this ruling and even thoough it was added in October 2005, it won’t actually come into effect until after Mosley has resigned or been defeated. It starts with Mosley’s successor. Annoyingly.

(1) the WMSC is neither choosen nor appointed by the president. They are elected by the General Assembly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport_Council
Have you any proof that it is named and not elected?

Wikipedia may well think that but the FIA disagrees. The following is taken from the FIA statutes as listed on the FIA website. I have included article 19 in full but the second paragraph (bold) says that the president of the FIA choose the members of the WMSC. I believe Max changed this rule to make it more difficult for someone to challenge him or that may apply to the senate. I have asked Alianora for clarification as she knows all this stuff much better than me.

Article 19: PRESIDENT – DEPUTY PRESIDENTS – VICE-PRESIDENTS
The President of the FIA, the 2 Deputy Presidents, the President of the Senate and the 5 members of the Senate other than the members by right, and the Vice-Presidents of the FIA shall be elected for 4 years in accordance with Article 9-4 of these Statutes. They shall be eligible for re-election.

The President of the FIA will choose, after his election, the World Council which he will personally chair. The appropriate deputy President will chair the other World Council. In the absence of the President of the FIA, the deputy President for the World Council which the President chairs will chair it.

The President of the FIA will assign missions and delegate specific responsibilities to the Vice-Presidents and to the Deputy Presidents, the latter being also responsible to him for the coordination of the activities of their respective World Councils.

From October 2005, the President of the FIA may not serve more than two consecutive terms of office, subject always to Article 12.1.

This comes from the FIA statutes as listed at http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/statutes/Pages/Article19.aspx

OllieEdit: This comment was altered very slightly by Ollie to include some details that Steven missed when the comment was re-attempted after the first try went straight to the spam bin (due to links). The sentiment of the comment remains. Hope you don’t mind, Steven.

You really don’t understand my position even if you think you do. I have already today posted on another site that it is wrong for McLaren to be supplying the ECU and it would have been wrong for Ferrari or any other team to do the same.

My problem with Mr Donnelly is that Ferrari were removed from his company’s customer list on their website just before he got the job. None of us have any idea how much Ferrari could affect his income. They may control 80% of his income or 0%. But it is wrong that anyone with a connection to any team should be put in his position. It is like one of the teams in a football match appointing the referee. As a matter of fact I don’t think his position should exist. Until the end of last season the move was towards permanent stewards, something I have argued for for 20 years plus. Now we have the ridiculous situation where Max appoints someone who as far as we know has no qualifications whatever as a steward to help the stewards reach a decision. How can four people reach a decision faster than three?

My position is that either no team should be represented in the Presidency, Senate, WMSC, stewards etc or multiple teams (minimum 4, optimum all) should be represented. It is plain wrong that so many people from one team should be in positions of power regardless whether that is Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Force India or anyone else.

The FIA (ie Max) clearly don’t understand the concept of conflict of interest. Max’s official representative since his hobby became public is on the board of directors of Ferrari. Regardless whether he or Max had done anything wrong the potential for conflict of interest exists. When Donnelly’s company removed Ferrari’s name from their website it looks like they are hiding his connection with them. Again regardless of whether or not he does anything wrong there is a potential conflict of interest.

We have all these people in positions of power with connections to Ferrari and Ferrari consistently get decisions in their favour including those where new rules appear out of thin air. Mass dampers, brake cooling ducts that have to be removed to stop brakes overheating, barge boards that are illegal on the car but legal on a jig on a different continent despite there being no traceablity and a whole litany of other cases.

Quite clearly the current management of F1 is unacceptable. When you have a former Sporting Director of Ferrari live on Italian TV not only disagreeing with the decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton but being incensed by it something is very, very wrong.

I would be equally unhappy if McLaren were runnig the sport or Williams or anyone else. The FIA (actually it should be FISA) have to be entirely neutral. How can it even be contemplated that Max’s choice of successor was until last season running one of the teams competing in F1. There are many good capable people who could run the FIA and a re-instated FISA in a far better manner than Max and his friends. I only hope they get the chance soon.

The rest of your accusations is a shame:
(1) the WMSC is neither choosen nor appointed by the president. They are elected by the General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport_Council have you any proof that is is named and not elected?

(2) you are saying that if somebody works or has wordked for Ferrari then he cannot be trusted.

OK why not… Then let me tell you what I could say (on the same unfair note…) there are too many brits everywhere in F1 (FIA: Mosley F1: Ecclestone,Many F1 teams…etc…) so because they are brits I cannot believe they are fair to other counties’s participants in F1. I guess you don’t like this one do you?

Another one? Why is it that McLaren was selected for the ECU? What would have you said if it was Ferrari? No confluct of interest there? Honestly this sort of accusation is taking us nowhere…

As we say in french “one should clean his doorstep before looking at the other’s…”
Life is not black or white it is grey with lots of shades…