Mosley gives a weak defence

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Max Mosley, Red Bull, 2006, 270150

Max Mosley has given an interview to the Sunday Telegraph – whose F1 correspondent Kevin Garside was just about the only journalist to stick up for the FIA President following the sex scandal story in the News of the World. Mosley made his position on the matter quite clear:

I think what happens is they think ‘what can we get at him, ah yes, we can say he’s this Nazi. Is there any basis for Nazism? Not really, but we can kind of invent something and then focus on the family name.’ The whole thing was quite deliberate from that point of view because it adds to the story.

He continued to insist that the majority of people within the FIA support him, despite very few having said so in public.

For every letter I’ve had from a club president saying ‘I think you should step down’ or ‘I think you should consider your position’, I’ve had seven, slightly more than seven, who said ‘you’ve absolutely got to stay, don’t give an inch’, and ‘this is the most outrageous invasion’, and suggesting that there’s more to this than meets the eye, which of course there may be.

Mosley was dismissive of the criticism saying:

None of the heavyweights have said anything, the people who really are the opinion formers in Formula 1. There’s a few ex-drivers.

Which is simply not true. Are BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and Honda not heavyweights? Is Mark Webber an ex-driver?

The Nazi angle is irrelevant

It’s becoming clear that there are two key matters that lie at the heart of the whole sordid debate.

The first is the ‘Nazi’ thing which, as I wrote in my very first post on the subject, seems like a dubious connection as it is one that British tabloids are fixated with.

If Mosley does have as many supporters as he claims to I think they’re standing by him because they don’t believe the Nazi angle.

But even if the Nazi thing isn’t true, the News of the World have given Mosley more than rope to hang himself with, and he’s grasped it with both hands.

The fall

That’s because of the second point: the President of the FIA has been revealed to be someone who gets a sexual thrill out of punishing people. Last year he levied an unprecedented fine against a team led by a man who we know Mosley does not like.

Can we honestly now say with any confidence that Mosley handed out that punishment because he thought it was the correct thing to do and not because he got a kick out of doing it?

What about when Eddie Irvine appealed against a one-race ban in 1994 and it suddenly became a three-race ban – a move that stunned many in the sport? What about Toyota’s expulsion from the World Rally Championship in 1995?

These were all controversial cases that led to severe punishments. The FIA president must be able to hand out these kinds of punishments when they are deserved. What we now know about Mosley makes it impossible to believe he can act with impartiality in these matters.

The moral argument

Mosley is trying to make the debate all about the ‘Nazi’ element and ignore the wider question of whether you can be considered a fair judge when you admit to being sexually aroused by administering punishment.

The reason he’s doing that is because the meeting on June 3rd to decide his future will surely have a lot to say about this clasue:

According to Article 27 of the Statutes of the FIA:

The World Motor Sport Council may directly impose the sanctions provided for in the International Sporting Code, and where appropriate the World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism may impose fines on or demand the exclusion from FIA bodies or international sporting events of licence holders, executive officers or members of ASNs or ACNs:

5) who by words, deeds or writings have inflicted moral injury and loss on the FIA, a World Council, their Members or their executive officers.

By focussing on the ‘Nazi’ part of the revelations he is trying to distract attention away from the heart of the matter – the real reason why he can’t stay in his job any more, and why every day that passes with him still in that role damages F1 even more.

NB. I’m sure you’re all as sick of this sordid story as I am – I’ve got some ‘proper’ posts on the way shortly.

100 comments on “Mosley gives a weak defence”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5
  1. Fireblade “3-The writer seems not to be living in Europe where hiring prostitutes is legalized. “

    And even if YOU DO live in the EU at best that statement is disingenuous. Every facet of the “profession” isn’t legal, in fact it’s illegal for a “potential client to solicit persistently, or solicit from a motor vehicle in the U.K.”

    Do YOU have specific and verifiable knowledge Mosley wasn’t persistent in his solicitation of the five girls?

    If so state it and give a source of your knowledge.

    Fireblade“4-Why did the objective writer not investigate the persons and interest groups who are standing beside this set-up crime?”

    Have you? You seem to imply there has been a set-up by someone, who did it? An “objective writer,” to use your terminology, wouldn’t make assertions without some type of proof, where’s yours?

    Fireblade, you’ve also noted the release of this filmed sordid episode and his right to privacy. While true he has that right the key question is who filmed it. Do you know for fact it wasn’t Max himself for his use at a later time?

    While the paper may be held culpable at some point for releasing it to the public, if Max had anything to do with the actual filming he’s in violation of English law that states it must have a basis of “perceived literary merit.” The film obviously fails that test and is illegal under the law.

    An “objective writer” would have noted that, you didn’t Fireblade, why not?

  2. It is beyond all belief that anyone with a whit of common sense can defend the "personal" acts of Max Mosley as not having an impact on his public decisions.

    When will society stop defending the rights of morally defective personalities in office when the public in general suffer the consequences? He’s got to go, end of story.

  3. Lady Snowcat
    21st April 2008, 0:13

    Oh dear…. so my views on privacy are beyond belief GK…

    Perhaps a lack of imagination there…. and as Max hasn’t insisted I take part in his "activities" then the only consequences I, or any commentator here has suffered are that the NOTW have tried to make us believe it’s important… when it just isn’t…. neither is it relevant….

    I don’t rate joining in a witch hunt as common sense but then perhaps I am just not used to stepping back in time like that….
    I had thought burning at the stake had gone out of fashion …but perhaps not….

    And as to the filming…. I suggest you read the Telegraph article in full folks….

    And finally… McLaren were guilty guys…they even had to admit it in the end…. bringing it up now suggests a bias in the matter rather than a balanced view….

    But in the end… if you are so wound up about people’s private passions and find them relevant to motorsport then I am sure nothing I say will change your mind….

    I guess you really, really couldn’t stand James Hunt or Eddie Irvine, not to mention many of the revered latter day heros of the track either….

  4. Lady Snowcat you are talking absolute rubbish, sorry but it has to be said. Privacy is all fine and well but people’s privacy is violated on a daily basis with no consequences handed out to the persons who conducted the violation in the first place.

    You are absolutly missing the point the guy was involved with prostitutes and was stupid enough to get caught. Surely you read the paper or remember an ounce of history within the UK and should realise what happens to people that are caught red handed with prostitutes. It nosedives!

    Case in hand read this:
    That person was also a barrister, and was head of the Crown Prosecution Service, so again just as an important – if not more so – position than Max.

    I suggest you stop defending him there is sufficient evidence that he was doing what the NOTW were claiming. Talking in German, prisoner apparrel and a prison guard uniforms, also with his parent’s being two of Britain’s most notorious Nazis it doesn’t leave much to the imagination.

  5. Well said Lady Snowcat!
    By the way…As I mentioned before…I want anyone to critizise his work..not his private life…so why did the whole blog switched to mute mode when i asked for the critizism of Mosley’s work attitude?
    The best jokes I have heard on this blog,where the far-fetched illusions of some daydreamers that Martin Brundle or Ron Dennis should be Mosley’s successor…
    well press zero and continue daydreaming!
    P.S:Do we have anyone on this blog who honestly thinks that the FIA treated McLaren in an unfair manner during the spy-scandal….?

  6. Lady Snowcat“then the only consequences I, or any commentator here has suffered are that the NOTW have tried to make us believe it’s important… when it just isn’t…. neither is it relevant….

    If that’s the case (based on the long list of VIP’s within the racing community wanting him to step down) your position places you far outside the mainstream on this issue.

    Perhaps I’m wrong, by chance have you seen ANY poll of f1 fans that had anything less than 70% calling for his head? If so I’d be more than pleased to look at it.

    Fireblade“The best jokes I have heard on this blog,where the far-fetched illusions of some daydreamers that Martin Brundle or Ron Dennis should be Mosley’s successor…
    well press zero and continue daydreaming!”

    Pots & black kettles.

    Wasn’t that precisely what you were doing by asserting there was some grand conspiracy based on your “far-fetched illusions” against Mosley?

    Or perhaps I’ve missed your proof of that.

    “P.S:Do we have anyone on this blog who honestly thinks that the FIA treated McLaren in an unfair manner during the spy-scandal….?

    Sure I will, but only in so far as the amount fined, but that has since been cut by half hasn’t it?

  7. "I want anyone to critizise his work..not his private life…so why did the whole blog switched to mute mode when i asked for the critizism of Mosley’s work attitude?"
    Do you really want me to do this, Fireblade?  I can go on and on here… But for the sake of brevity, I’ll stick to the major sticky points: Spygate, Indy 2005, and constant rules changes.  Most F1 fans would know of these three points AT LEAST, some would claim others.  Do you have any idea how long a good number of people wanted Mosley out SOLELY because of what he was doing as FIA president?

    "The best jokes I have heard on this blog,where the far-fetched illusions of some daydreamers that Martin Brundle or Ron Dennis should be Mosley’s successor…"
    Well, yes, those are long shots.  Others, like Sir Jackie Stewart, are much more serious names, if they really wanted to be FIA president.

    "P.S:Do we have anyone on this blog who honestly thinks that the FIA treated McLaren in an unfair manner during the spy-scandal….?"
    I think McLaren was guilty too, but I’ll let the others discuss how they see this one.

  8. Journeyer… 2005 USGP. Nail hit squarely on the head.

    That debacle was orchestrated by Mosley and led to a drop of nearly one hundred thousand in paid attendance in 2006 and finally “Uncle Bernie” pulled the plug on the race completely.

    Mosley’s been far, very far from a competent administrator for a very long time.

    Go ahead, apologists for the Littlest Perv, defend that action.

  9. Fireblade, having read this blog for quite some time now (amongst many others) I would suggest that people thinking the McLaren punishment was fair are in the minority, by quite a margin too.

    Maybe you’re right in saying this is just an excuse for people to call for Mad Max’s head on a platter – but then whose fault would that be?

    Had Mad Max been good at his job, fair & impartial, innovative and taken F1 in the correct direction then people *may* have been willing to overlook a less than savoury incident in his personal life.

    However, since the answer to all of the above is a resounding NO, then blame can be laid in one place only, firmly at the feet of one Mr Max Mosely.

  10. We haven’t discussed Max’s work attitude here, largely because there is a lot of discussion of it elsewhere. As well as the things Journeyer has listed, I would like to nominate reintroducing traction control in 2001 (and then only getting rid of it 5 years after he promised to get the devices removed, blaming the manufacturers), the "cost-cutting" initiative in 2004/5 that cost so much more money that three teams had to sell out to other organisations, the "mass dampers" of 2006 (Max asked the FIA appealed itself to force a judgement implicitly banning all F1 cars without noticing there might be a problem) and his completely inconsistent treatment of the various espionage cases in the last four years.

    I consider McLaren to have been treated extremely unfairly in the McLaren/Ferrari mess – McLaren offered plentiful legal arguments to support the notion that they merely had a rogue employee. The supposedly-revelatory Alonso/de la Rosa e-mails merely proved that there were three rogues rather than one, while also suggesting that not even their engineers knew about the Ferrari information. Yet the FIA ignored all this and simply let Max Mosley’s opinions stand alone and unsupported as if they were themselves legal evidence. They were not, yet the WMSC still considered Max’s opinion to be worth more than evidence or legal argument. Just to rub everyone’s noses in it, they then gave two of the three guilty parties amnesty. Then there were the endless investigations and innuendos, which more or less forced McLaren to pretend to apologise (if you read the full text of it, the apologies do not admit to anything happening) in order to get the FIA to stop messing about.

    When compared to Toyota in 2004 (ignored despite a formal court judgement against them), Spyker in 2007 (mildly reprimanded on a different rule despite visual proof of the document being in the wrong hands) and Renault in 2007 (guilty but no punishment despite sort-of admitting to considerably more than McLaren were proved of doing), McLaren’s treatment was blatantly unfair.

  11. Alianora & Journeyer – I’d add the disgraceful episode in Melbourne 2005 where Mad Max assumed superiority over the entire Australian Judicial System, and then further in his arrogance, threatened taking away the Melbourne race because the he disagreed with the ruling.

    I have been calling for his resignation ever since.

  12. As always, an active debate over the antics of Mad Max.

    My stance on this situation is very basic. As head of the FIA, Max is entrusted with representing the best interests and wishes of motorsports the world over. This includes people of nearly every race, ethnicity and religious faith. It is clear to anyone watching Max’s video that he is involved in fantasies  and role-playing that is designed to capture the spirit of one of the most destructive and oppressive acts of mass murder in human history- a movement that was aimed at specific faiths and ethnic groups that are represented by Max in his current role.

    I don’t know if any of you who support Max have any assosiation with groups that fell victim to the reign of Nazi terror he is re-enacting, but in my book, he has demonstrated an atittude that is clearly offensive and hurtful to many people around the wolrd whom he is paid big money to represent. That renders him ineffective and untrustworthy in his current job, and he should step down accordingly.

  13. And to Fireblade, I would simply say that if you discuss the ethics of professional journalism in the future, it may be in your best interests to address someone as "you" and "your" rather than "u" and "ur"- it just makes your stuff look that much better.

  14. Alianora la Canta for President of the FIA. ‘Nuff said.

  15. Todt-Mosley-Ferrari, a glowing Todt recommendation for The Littist Perv to stay on the job…. sure lets reignite an old tired conspiracy theory.

  16. VERY interesting, Keith.  I think this may actually reflect Ferrari’s position as a whole. (Unity between LDM and Todt?  Surely not!)

    Todt can’t really attack Max.  He was previously favorite to succeed Max as FIA president, so it would be distasteful of him to be seen positioning himself to take over.

    But since this Mosley-gate blew up, Todt’s chances of becoming FIA president have dropped significantly.  As it is, if Mosley is indeed voted out of the FIA, Mosley’s virtual endorsement of Todt may be the kiss of death for the tiny Frenchman’s ambitions (if indeed they do exist).

  17. Well that is no surprise – Max calling in one of his IOU’s

  18. Now there’s a surprise Todt standing by the pervert Mosley

  19. There are alot of other people in sport who’s action has affected the outcome of the F1 championship when compared to anything which Max Mosley did when he stripped off the constructor points off McLaren.Actually even if the Woking based team would have keept the points,it would have lost to Ferrari by small margin.
    Michael Schumacher did alot of stuff that influenced the outcome of the F1 driver’s championship results..e.g.Schumi-Hill,Schumi-Villeneuve,the fuel affair when he was driving for Benetton…and the two famous Senna-Prost clashes where Ron Dennis did not even think to interfere to constrain Senna’s rude driving style.
    So who’s decisions and actions did affect the outcome of the F1championship more in your opinion?

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.