WhiteBlue wrote:GitanesBlondes wrote:I'm still waiting for WhiteBlue to answer.
I have no idea what to answer to. The story you posted btw is completely biased and full of libel. It has cost the author all his reputation of a serious journalist. Compare the Wiki entry on the man.
Tom Rubython is a British journalist, entrepreneur and publisher with an interest in business topics and Formula One racing. He was formerly the founder and publisher of Formula 1 Magazine, BusinessF1 Magazine and editor of EuroBusiness magazine. He has written three books and most recently headed a collaboration to publish a 2004 biography of Ayrton Senna, The Life of Senna. Rubython lost a libel suit before the UK High Court in 2006 and was ordered to pay damages of £75,000. He appealed against this award but lost in the UK Court of Appeal on 18 April 2007. In June 2006, he faced another libel suit, this time from FIA director of publicity Richard Woods which Woods won.
All of this is actually off topic as far as I'm concerned. So don' expect me to make more comments about Max Mosley's history with Ecclestone.
As far as the Munich court and his track record is concerned I must say I rather trust my compatriot Peter Knoll than xpensive. Knoll indicted Ecclestone and he will send him to jail or retirement in my view. Until that day Ecclestone is not guilty but I say within the next six month that will change.
UK libel laws are one of, if not the worst in the Western world, so I wouldn't exactly hold them up as the shining torch of proof.
The partnership of Mosley and Ecclestone may be off topic in your opinion, but I don't share that sentiment. Where we currently are today with this looming trial is a product very much of their partnership.
While it's speculation, had the teams been able to bid on the sport's commercial rights, the very real possibility exists that Ecclestone would never have been able to do what he did over the past 15 or so years. I believe the teams should have had the commercial rights that Ecclestone got ahold of simply because they take far more risk than any other group within Formula 1. Bernie's tactics are akin to what a street thug does, and he takes no real risk with his methods. It's all profit for him at the end of the day, made capable courtesy of Max Mosley.
An interesting quote to consider when one looks back at the past 2 decades is the following...
"Behind the scenes, the biggest single event of the year was the unseating of Jean-Marie Balestre as President of the sport's governing body, FISA, by Max Mosley. After 13 years of autocratic rule at the helm of international motor sport, the high-profile Frenchman was voted out by a margin of 43 to 29 by supporters of the more diplomatic Mosley.
Max is an old hand at the business of motor racing politics and, while he projects a well-polished and highly reasoned approach, it would be a mistake to believe him to be a softer touch. Unlike Balestre, Mosley favours the rapier rather than the bludgeon, but his commitment to the sport is no less obvious and deep-rooted for that. He has pledged himself to be a less obtuse administrator than his predecessor and feels that, by and large, Grand Prix racing works well in its current state. There are other areas of the sport which he believes would benefit more from his attention and he plans to make it his business to focus on those for the time being." -Alan Henry, November 1991
Is the sport better off than it was in 1991? Only if you consider profit to be the final determining factor.
Wow, interesting stuff going on in this thread.
