Unfortunately, as often happens in Formula 1, the on-track events have been overshadowed by the inept management of the sport behind the scenes. The stewarding in Valencia was a complete shambles, making a mockery of the sport.

As if the shambolic nature of the stewarding wasn’t enough, the issue has been compounded by Ferrari’s over-the-top reaction. Yes, they have a point. They were hard done by. The FIA systems should have worked better. But, in the words of a former Scottish First Minister, it was more of a cock-up than a conspiracy.

It is unusual for Ferrari to jump up and down and complain about unfair treatment at the hands of the FIA. This is the team that brought us farcical events like Austria 2002 and the “manufactured dead heat” at Indianapolis the same year — yet now they complain about manipulated race results. Never mind, I suppose eight years have passed…

The stewarding problem wasn’t solved after all

Of course, one of the biggest changes in the way the sport is run this year (apart from the change of FIA President) has been the introduction of an ex-driver to advise the stewards. At first it seemed to be working — the stewards were staying quiet, keeping out of matters they didn’t need to be involved in, and generally doing a good job.

Unfortunately, it must just have been a run of good luck, because the past few races have seen a return to the bad old days of shambolic stewarding and controversial conclusions. They still need to be doing a better job.

Getting the involvement of former drivers is a welcome move. But it is only a sticking plaster when the problems with the way the sport is run are so deep. For the time being, the drivers are a piece of decorative tinsel.

It is unfortunate for them that, due to their high profile, the spotlight is unfairly focussed on the drivers. We have often seen, during the race coverage produced by FOM, pictures of the driver in the stewards’ room. In Valencia it was Heinz-Harald Frentzen. But no-one is interested in the other three stewards.

That is a shame because it would be useful to know more. I happened to recognise the name of one of the other stewards at Valencia. Radovan Novak was the controversial person who, in 2008, claimed that McLaren were “responsible” for the Max Mosley sex scandal.

Mr Novak was also reported to have spoken against the prospect of Jean Todt becoming FIA President. On paper, he doesn’t seem like the sort of person who might like to be part of a Jean Todt-led conspiracy in favour of McLaren. Then again, maybe things change easily when the new boss enters his office.

The real problem: The rules are too complex

Mike Gascoyne hit the nail bang on the head:

I think since we started changing the safety car rules, every time you change something you get all these scenarios thrown up, and I think it is just that.

Charlie [Whiting, FIA race director] is trying to do the job as he sees it, calls it as he sees it, and he has as difficult a job as everyone. I think it is just one of those things.

The real issue is that the rules of Formula 1 are too complex. As such, the regulations are filled with loopholes within grey areas. This makes the sport difficult to follow and impossible to fairly officiate.

In recent years, the Safety Car rules have become particularly complex. The FIA has struggled to get this quite right, with the result being ad-hoc changes tacked on to amendments. It reminds me a lot of the constant tinkering the FIA made to the qualifying format in the mid-noughties until it finally settled on the current knockout system.

Already this year, following the farcical finish to the Monaco Grand Prix, a badly written rule has been hastily re-written. It looks like more clarifications will have to come after nine drivers were ended up unintentionally breaking the letter of the law after the Safety Car was deployed towards the end of the lap for many drivers.

On this week’s Radio 5 Live Chequered Flag podcast, Lewis Hamilton described the confusion that the current Safety Car rules create. You can hear it from around 9:40 in:

When the Safety Car comes out, you get all these beeps in your ear, and you get all this different information on your dashboard and lights flashing at you. And you’ve got to have a certain time between the Safety Car 1 line and the Safety Car 2 line. Then between the two Safety Car lines you can go fast. It’s just all so confusing.

In Valencia, the stewards had to make sure they made the right decision. But this meant taking the time to find the evidence and come to a decision in the proper way, which lessened the impact of the penalty. Exactly the same thing happened quite memorably to Nico Rosberg during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

While it’s understandable that the stewards would want to get their decision right, Formula 1 now needs to look urgently at ways of making these decisions more quickly and more efficiently. Formula 1 is a sport with a lot of technology at its finger tips.

There are lots of cameras (the FIA has access to more than we ever see on television), and GPS data, team radio recordings, telemetry and timing systems. Not all of this can be analysed on the spot, but a lot of it can. This ought to be utilised much more.

The words “will be investigated after the race” — which used to be almost unheard of but is now a regular occurrence — should only be used in extreme circumstances. Television viewers and fans at the racetrack need to have confidence that what they have seen play out on the track is the real result.

Most of all, there needs to be a mass simplification of the F1 rules in order to avoid as much this as much as possible. F1 is a complex sport, and it is clearly not easy to regulate. But action needs to be taken, because right now the FIA rule book is more useful as a doorstop than a way to effectively run a motor race.

I also recommend the following posts on this topic:

• Will Buxton: Is Formula 1 bringing itself into disrepute?
• F1 Fanatic: FIA must learn from Valencia shambles

Suspicion about the result has hung around since immediately after the race. Fernando Alonso’s strategy was unusual, though by no means unheard of. He was filled very light at the beginning so that he could pit a few laps before everyone else and hope for a Safety Car within those few laps to make up the places. How convenient, it was widely noted, that the Safety Car Alonso badly needed was brought out as a result of his team mate Piquet slinging his car into the wall.

Up until this week, though, I had always suspected that if there was any conspiracy on Renault’s part, it was to tell Piquet in the heat of the moment to push hard in the hope that he might crash. The way the situation is framed now, it seems as though the allegation is that the whole thing was premeditated. The thinking appears to be that the plan was formulated by Renault personnel and discussed with Piquet before the race began.

If these allegations are true, they should be taken very seriously indeed. It would surely be the biggest scandal ever to have hit Formula 1 (and that is saying something). This is no little sex game. It is not mere pilfering of intellectual property. The concern here isn’t even just about race fixing, though that is a serious charge in itself.

When you talk about deliberately crashing a car, that is a major safety issue. First of all there is the safety of the driver who is being asked to crash a car into a wall. Despite the high safety standards for drivers today, it is obvious to see how this plan could have had terrible consequences.

Then there is the safety of other drivers. Even though Piquet’s crash happened when there were no other drivers near him, this is not really the point. (Update: Actually, looking at the replay, there are other drivers near him, and indeed he is overtaken while the crash is still happening.) His crash left debris spread across the track. A driver could easily pick up a puncture and end up in his own serious accident.

This year we have also had bad experiences of debris causing serious injury to Felipe Massa and the death of Henry Surtees. In Hungary, the spring from Rubens Barrichello’s car was bouncing around for four seconds until it hit Massa’s helmet with disastrous consequences. How would anyone setting out to deliberately crash their car know that there won’t be any knock-on effects to the safety of other drivers?

That is before we even consider the safety of the spectators. In the video we can see that they are actually sitting very close to Piquet’s accident right next to the circuit. If shards of debris made their way into the crowd, we could be looking at injuries there too.

Comparisons with rugby union’s “bloodgate” scandal understate the nature of these allegations. Piquet’s crash could have involved real blood.

Yes, motorsport is dangerous. Everyone knows that. But everyone takes part under the assumption that safety comes first, and that no-one is deliberately setting out to cause danger. Let us be clear. If it is true that Piquet was instructed to deliberately crash the car, we could easily be looking at manslaughter charges rather than just race fixing charges.

That is why I find it so difficult to believe that the Renault team or anyone else involved in motorsport would actually consider concocting such a scheme. The allegations against Renault are very serious and as such there needs to be cast-iron evidence if any action is to be taken.

It seems unbelievable that Renault would leave behind any trace of their plan in the form of, for instance, their radio transmissions (although that didn’t stop McLaren from inexplicably trying to pretend they didn’t exist back in Australia this year). A secret code phrase is not inconceivable though.

I can easily envisage such a code phrase being something like “Fernando has been in for his stop”. It is, after all, not unusual for a driver to be told how his team mate is doing, and that simple piece of information would have told Piquet all he needed to know. I imagine the FIA will be studying the radio recordings of the Singapore race and other races to see if there is anything unusual at all about the Singapore transmissions in the run-up to Piquet’s crash.

Then comes the question of where exactly the new evidence has come from. The assumption seems to be that it has come from camp Piquet (either Jr or Sr). It is easy to see what Piquet’s agenda might be. The clear mission just now is to discredit Flavio Briatore — that is clear from Piquet’s incredible statement after he was sacked by Renault.

One thing makes me doubt that Piquet is the whistleblower is that this whole thing would show him up to be the sort of dummy would go along with such a dangerous scheme for his own short-term gain. If the allegations are true, Piquet is just as liable as the Renault team. If he thinks he will save his career by blowing the whistle, he really is a few marbles short.

The only way this calculation can work is that Piquet thought that his career was ruined anyway (which I suppose is likely), and he has nothing to lose and at least can bring Briatore down with him. Otherwise, Piquet’s only hope will be that he is looked upon favourably for being the whistleblower. But I think anyone who is happy to deliberately crash their car in a premeditated scheme ought to be set for a lengthy racing ban.

Amid all this, it is worth asking the question: is Renault the sort of team that would do this sort of thing. A certain constituency would say that it is in the nature of competitive drivers and teams to exploit loopholes in the regulations, and that creative interpretations of the rulebook are to be expected and, in some cases, celebrated.

The Benetton / Renault team which has been run by Flavio Briatore for most of the past twenty years has certainly seen its fair share of scandals over the years. This was particularly the case while Michael Schumacher was driving for them. In 1994 it seemed as though Benetton were never far away from trouble.

But the team has been reticent in pushing the regulations in recent years, probably having learnt its lesson from previous controversies. That was particularly noticeable when Renault stuck to the spirit of the engine freeze principle, while every other engine manufacturer upgraded their engine in the guise of improving reliability.

There was a smaller spygate-style scandal when team members were found to be in possession of McLaren intellectual property. But overall, the picture is mixed. Most of the team’s biggest examples of cheating happened fifteen years ago. As such, it is difficult to say if Renault is the sort of team that would willingly manipulate events in the manner which is alleged.

The FIA will want to consider the facts of the incident in question though. Or will they? It is interesting to consider if this might be Max Mosley’s parting shot. Given the political shenanigans from earlier this year, it is probably fair to say that Flavio Briatore is not Max Mosley’s favourite person. Is this another invention of (or inflation by) the FIA, as with the Stepneygate issue of two years ago?

Some people will always suspect the FIA’s motives, particularly why Max Mosley is in charge. Checkpoint 10 goes as far as to “blame the rules” for Renault’s alleged actions. I agree to an extent. The FIA’s rulebook is famously convoluted, and it was the ridiculous Safety Car rules that led to this situation in the first place. I draw the line at saying that such actions should be “commended” though — as I say, there could have been far more serious implications than mere race-fixing.

Joe Saward has a good overview which I would highly recommend reading.

This week the ACEA, the European Car Manufacturers’ Association, came out to say that the “current governance of the sport can’t continue”. The FIA’s retort was predictably arrogant and bitter. One thing that particularly interested me was this irrelevant paragraph at the end:

The FIA understands that Porsche did not support ACEA’s Formula One resolution and has instructed the ACEA secretariat to make this clear in response to any press enquiries.

Grasping at straws, this was the one thing the FIA found to attack the ACEA with (and how typical it is of Max to go on the attack with a straw man like this rather than methodically argue their case — probably because their case is filled with holes). It’s odd that they should find the view of Porsche within the ACEA so important. This is a manufacturer which was last involved in F1 way back in 1991, and not very successfully either. They have shown very little interest in returning to F1.

Indeed, a certain revelation last year put paid to any slim chance that Porsche might enter F1 while Max Mosley is in charge. Wolfgang Porsche said last year: “After the affair with Max Mosley and the women it would not be very savoury to get involved (in Formula One) now.”

Funny how Max Mosley didn’t pay so much attention to Porsche’s views then, isn’t it?

It strikes me as odd that Mosley should bang on and on about how the current recession means that the manufacturers must be told how much they will be able to spend. Somehow I think the ACEA is in a much better position to know where than manufacturers stand.

Yesterday, the FIA released to the media a further exchange of letters between the FIA and Fota. Presumably this is again supposed to show Fota in a bad light. But Fota’s letter is conciliatory in tone and the content clearly seeks a compromise. Fota propose solutions in four key areas. Max Mosley’s response? Four doors slammed shut.

On governance, Mosley wants the teams to agree to extend an 11-year-old Concorde Agreement and from that point negotiate forwards. This would involve the teams placing a huge amount of trust in the FIA, and the FIA have shown themselves to be a distinctly untrustworthy organisation. Slam.

On resource restriction, the FIA still contends that “a fundamental problem with the Fota proposal was the absence of a clear figure”. In other words, unless the budget cap is on the table, the FIA will not discuss it. Slam.

On the two-tier system, the FIA confirms that even though it says there will be no two-tier system in F1 next season, the technical regulations will still in fact be rigged in favour of teams running the Cosworth engine which will not have a limit on its performance, as all other engines do. Slam.

Bye-bye compromise. And it’s all thanks to Max Mosley. The letter looks as though it was formulated in order to tweak the teams’ tails. It leaves F1 facing the serious prospect of a breakaway.

It pains me to say it, but I am beginning to find the idea of a breakaway very appealing. By the FIA’s own admission, next year’s budget capped cars will not perform to F1 standard. All of the top teams in F1 currently do not stand on the FIA’s side, and the most promising of the new teams were not given a slot on the entry list last week. As things stand, the FIA Championship will have no teams of a high pedigree.

As for drivers, as things stand the FIA Championship will have no Champions on the grid. Fernando Alonso, Felipe Massa and Mark Webber have all spoken out against the FIA’s budget cap proposals, lamenting the fact that it would bring to an end the notion of F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport. All three drivers would sooner drive in a breakaway series than drive in a budget capped series.

Fernando Alonso:

I prefer to race in any other category before in the new F1. A model similar to GP2 or F3 is not interesting for any driver, for any sponsor or for any circuit or television network. In that case it would be a category without any sense.

Felipe Massa:

…we need to look seriously at what is the best option: as the teams appear to be united, then maybe it is time to look at doing something different that could be better for the sport.

Mark Webber:

Collectively everyone has played a role in trying to help and protect the sport and you just see all that effort down the years being devalued or diluted through some pretty radical ideas.

It’s good to have some stability, to be able to predict what’s going to happen, not have different things going on every six months.

All the drivers share the same view. We want to drive for the best teams and race against the best drivers. If it’s not the FIA Formula 1 world championship, so be it. It’ll still be the most prestigious championship.

Mark Webber’s opinion is particularly useful to pay attention to, as he the most senior member of the GPDA, the F1 drivers’ union, to have a race seat. He therefore has an intimate knowledge of what the drivers are thinking, and he has pointed out that “All the drivers have the same view.”

So the teams are against the FIA. The drivers are against the FIA. And the fans are almost universally against the FIA (see, for example, here and here).

I sense that there are a few journalists who have taken the FIA’s side. However, it is well known that journalists who speak out against the FIA sometimes find themselves having “problems”. After The Sunday Times received a writ for libel from Max Mosley following a column written by Martin Brundle, he had this to say:

I’m tired of what I perceive as the “spin” and tactics of the FIA press office, as are many other journalists. I expect my accreditation pass for next year will be hindered in some way to make my coverage of F1 more difficult and to punish me. Or they will write to ITV again to say that my commentary is not up to standard despite my unprecedented six Royal Television Society Awards for sports broadcasting.

The FIA vets journalists, so they must be seen as another F1 institution that is inherently biased towards the FIA’s point of view. In that sense, it is amazing that a few journalists have decided to speak out. See, for instance, Richard Williams (who I believe does not attend grands prix anyway as Maurice Hamilton is The Guardian’s main F1 correspondent) and Ed Gorman.

Unless the unthinkable happens and Max Mosley capitulates, we as fans (who have been given no say by the FIA, unlike Fota who have conducted proper market research) will have to endure his rotten vision of F1 anyway. At least with a breakaway we will have a choice.

What do we want? Max Mosley’s dungeon dictatorship which, like all dictatorships, will run his playthings into the ground? Or the best drivers racing the best cars at the best circuits? It’s surely a simple decision.

This year’s increase is a relatively modest increase to take account of inflation. But it seems that the drivers were expecting the Super License fees to go back down having made their views very clear about it last year. No such luck. The GPDA issued a press release, the first time they have done such a thing according to Brad Spurgeon.

Grandprix.com called the press release an unwise move. Certainly, the decision to release it on Friday evening — when the rest of the world is off to the pub for the next 60 hours — displays an incredible lack of media savvy, even for a club of simple racing drivers.

But I can’t agree with the overall sentiment of the article. It may be difficult to feel much sympathy for some of the most highly-paid sports stars in the world. But questions need to be asked about quite what the FIA is playing at.

The 2008 increase took the basic fee up from €1,690 to €10,000. On top of that, the extra fee for each driver increased from €447 per point to €2,000 per point. Such an increase will come as a shock no matter how rich you are.

All in all, this allowed the FIA to increase their takings through the Super License by 454%. This increase has still neither been explained nor justified by the FIA, except something vague to do with safety (as though all the safety measures only came in during 2008). Safety is a nice get-out for the FIA. As often argued by Grace on the Formula 1 Blog.com podcast, the FIA know that no-one will be able to argue against “safety”, so they use that to explain anything without having to actually justify it.

The GPDA’s statement notes that this year the World Drivers’ Champion (i.e. Lewis Hamilton) will have to pay $270,000 simply for the right to compete. (It is worth noting that Lewis Hamilton is not a member of the GPDA, so this issue is not simply about Lewis Hamilton.) Outside of F1, the highest license fee is $4,000 which a Nascar driver has to pay. That is minuscule compared with the FIA’s Super License fee.

Formula 1 drivers may be rich. But they earn their money. That is because they are among the very most supremely talented individuals in the world — which is a lot more than can be said for certain presidents of certain governing bodies. It looks suspiciously like the FIA has calculated that F1 drivers will receive little sympathy over this issue, and so have decided to exploit them to extract as much money as possible.

As has been noted by others many times, for the past few years the FIA has appeared to be on a complete money grab. It is not just the drivers that have faced a fee hike in recent years.

The FIA proposed to increase a team’s entry fee to the 2009 Formula 1 World Championship from €300,000 to €740,000. Again, safety was used as the excuse. Alianora La Canta noted.

Then there is the ONE HUNDRED MEELION DOLLARS fine handed out to McLaren in 2007. The FIA have still not revealed what on earth they have spent that money on.

Despite these handy new sources of income, the FIA has somehow contrived to increase its budget shortfall for 2009. Keith Collantine looked into this and you have to wonder just what is going on at the FIA.

The shortfall of €1.7 million in 2008 was bad enough. Somehow this has almost doubled to €3 million for 2009. The FIA’s sheer incompetence never ceases to amaze me. Maybe it is because Max Mosley thinks nothing of disposing of upwards of £1 million for his own personal gain when it would have been much easier, cost-effective and dignified to just do the honourable thing and step down.

Max Mosley may have scoffed at the notion of Fred Goodwin replacing him as FIA President. But it seems to me that the FIA could do with the help of someone who has a bit of experience in managing money. (Then again, maybe I only say that because I am Scottish and I have no understanding of how F1 or the FIA work. Though I don’t think I am unusually stupid.)

So even though the drivers’ plight may engender little sympathy among the general public as a whole, they are still right to make a stand. Someone needs to ask some serious questions about why the FIA is taking in ever more money, yet ending up with ever higher shortfalls. It’s time that Max Mosley and the FIA were held to account for this, because to me it just stinks to high heaven of something fishy.

Firstly I got a model car. I used to collect diecast models in 1:43 scale, and at one point I wanted to collect all of the Drivers’ Championship winning cars in 1:43 scale. I got bored of that after the third Schumacher Ferrari in a row in 2002.

Recently, my father came across a small selection of inexpensive 1:18 scale models in our local TK Maxx. He decided to get me Graham Hill’s Lotus 49B, which the side of the box informs me finished 2nd in the 1968 US Grand Prix.

Manufactured by Sun Star Models under the Quartzo brand, it is nice enough. But in all honesty it is not the highest quality model I have ever set my eyes upon. For instance, the rear wing is made of plastic, it comes separately and you have to attach it yourself. The engine is also made of plastic and is rather wonky-looking. It is also far from the best presentation I have seen. However, the majority of the model is diecast and looks great. For the money, it’s a pretty good buy.

The most surprising gift I got was this official Formula 1 belt, which I got from my brother (who sometimes writes here as Onebrow) and his girlfriend. It was surprising not just because I didn’t expect it, but because I didn’t even know you could buy an official Formula 1 belt!

I’ve never been one for official Formula 1 merchandise. I feel little loyalty to Formula 1 — I will follow any great grand prix racing. Plus, the thought of adding more money to Bernie’s pockets doesn’t fill me with total joy.

Nonetheless, this is a classy little belt. The Formula 1 logo looks quite good on the buckle. The ‘F’ in the logo is actually transparent, thereby only turning black when you do the belt up. I don’t exactly see myself going around the place wearing it, but I did wear it for all of Christmas Day and it certainly brought a smirk to my face when I unwrapped it. I wasn’t expecting to get Bernie’s belt for Christmas. I’m just glad it wasn’t Max’s whip!

For those interested in it, for some reason the product is not available on the official Formula 1 store, but the belt was bought from Tesco!

But my favourite present was the one that I bought for myself! It is a Mega Bloks McLaren F1 Racer. It is a McLaren Mercedes MP4/22, the 2007 car driven by Fernando Alonso, in 1:12 scale. For the uninitiated, Mega Bloks is like Lego, but less Danish. This McLaren model clearly takes its cue from Ferrari Lego.

Given that the McLaren–Alonso combination didn’t exactly work out, it may not be the most sought-after of gifts. But as I quite like both McLaren and Fernando Alonso, I have no problem whatsoever with it.

I got this out of my workplace, Woolworths. The original price of this was north of £20, which I think is quite a lot. But thanks to the fact that Woolies has been holding a closing down sale, I got an extra 20% off this on top of my normal colleague discount, which made it much better value for money.

I was, in fact, lucky to get it. We had sold out of it long ago, but a customer returned one and I put it aside so that I could buy it myself. It originally caught my eye partly because it was F1-related, but also because it is beautifully presented in a gorgeous tin, which this photograph does no justice to.

Christine and Me at Sidepodcast had a similar idea, although Christine got the smaller pit stop version.

And here is the finished article! I didn’t time myself, but I reckon all-in-all I probably spent about three hours on it. When I first opened the tin and saw the number of pieces (455, but it felt like about a thousand) and the size of the instruction manual it looked quite daunting. But once I got stuck into it, it became difficult for me to tear myself away from it. In the end, I was quite upset when I came to the final few blocks, despite the sense of accomplishment.

In fact, by far the most difficult aspect was putting the stickers on at the end. I think I did a pretty good job of it though. I think it looks absolutely great. Being made of Lego-style building blocks, it doesn’t exactly have the sleek look of an actual McLaren F1 car. But it is still gorgeous, and I can hardly stop examining it.

In parts it is very blocky, but in other areas the detail is suprisingly good. The frong wing has a curvaceous look to it, and additions such as the T-cam, the ‘horns’ and even a couple of aerodynamic flick-ups are all present and correct. Be careful not to lift the car by the engine cover (the natural place to pick it up, I think) because it is not attached. It comes straight off so that you can examine the engine!

The tin and the instruction manual appear to promise a “building challenge”. It appears to be another model — some kind of fantasy futuristic vehicle, WipEout-style — that you can build with the same pieces, but there are no instructions for it. However, having completed the McLaren model, complete with stickers, I don’t think I can actually do this. Taking the McLaren apart, having basically stuck many of the bits together with sponsor stickers, will be near impossible. This seems to be an oversight on the part of the manufacturers.

Mind you, it looks so gorgeous that I probably wouldn’t be able to bring myself to take it apart anyway.

Meanwhile, I got my brother a 1:43 scale model of Takuma Sato’s Super Aguri SA03. It may only have competed in four races, but that makes the model all the more special if you ask me. My brother is fond of Takuma Sato and Super Aguri, so it felt right to get him it!

Did anyone else receive F1-related gifts for their Christmas? If so, what did you make of them?

What I find interesting is that the example he uses to “rebut” the theory is exactly the same example used by Max Mosley in a recent interview with the BBC. This suggests that the FIA is now running a coordinated campaign in order to re-establish its credibility as governing body.

It sorely needs that campaign. With the multitude of increasingly bizarre penalties handed out throughout this season, trust in the FIA’s systems have taken a hammer-blow. The only thing that has become clear this season is that there is no way of knowing what will get punished and what won’t.

Fans no longer trust the FIA, as you will see by dropping in to any blog or message board. Many in the media no longer trust the FIA’s stewards. Increasingly, drivers are calling for urgent changes to be made to the stewarding system. Teams have decided that enough is enough and have formed FOTA to counter the FIA’s madness. And yesterday, even Bernie Ecclestone slammed some of the penalties recently handed out by the FIA.

It looks like the only people who have any trust in the FIA any more are the FIA themselves. And any government that has lost the trust of everyone is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Now, the FIA is erratically throwing out increasingly bizarre ideas to change the face of F1 from tip to toe. Many of the changes, most notably a standardised engine, are completely antithetical to the idea of grand prix motor racing as we have all grown to know it, and Max Mosley’s vision of F1 is sure to alienate most fans.

It is a sign of the mismanagement and desperation of the poisonous and discredited little man at the top Max Mosley. He should have left his post after the Indygate debacle in 2005 when Max Mosley, in consort with Jean Todt, refused to compromise to allow the race go ahead. Since then, Max Mosley has never had my favour and the events of this year have further underlined my feelings.

Earlier this year, at the height of the sex scandal, he promised that he would step down at the end of his term next year. But as I noted at the time, he promised to resign in 2004 then changed his mind. True enough, the signs now are that he will continue on as FIA President. It is clear that he only promised to resign to help him get through the General Assembly vote. This makes him a liar. What a terrible person to have in such a powerful position.

Let us not forget that at the end of last season, the well-respected permanent steward Tony Scott Andrews left the role which had been seen as a relative success. In his place, a new consultant to the stewards was appointed. That man was Mosley’s mate Alan Donnelly. Donnelly’s company, Sovereign Strategy, based in an FIA-owned building, used to list Ferrari as one of its clients on its website. The Ferrari name mysteriously disappeared when Donnelly was appointed in his new role.

Mosley and Donnelly are now trotting out the following “proof” of why the FIA is not biased in favour of Ferrari:

You just need one example to debunk that theory: at Monaco the stewards noticed that on Raikkonen’s F2008 the wheels had not been fitted before the three-minute mark as allowed in the regulations. So the stewards penalised Kimi with a drive-through in a track where you can’t overtake.

That would be an inadequate argument anyway, as I already wrote when Mosley came out with it on the BBC. But it is even worse than that. As Don Speekingleesh pointed out in the comments, the Sporting Regulations clearly state that such an infraction should actually result in a driver starting from the back of the grid.

Article 38.5 of the Sporting Regulations (PDF link) states:

When the three minute signal is shown all cars must have their wheels fitted, after this signal wheels may only be removed in the pit lane or on the grid during a race suspension.

Any car which does not have all its wheels fully fitted at the three minute signal must start the race from the back of the grid or the pit lane. Under these circumstances a marshal holding a yellow flag will prevent the car (or cars) from leaving the grid until all cars able to do so have left to start the formation lap.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. Alan Donnelly’s own “proof” that the FIA is not biased in favour of Ferrari actually appears to support of the conspiracy theory. It is clear that, according to the letter of the rules, Kimi Raikkonen should have started the race from the back of the grid. As it was, with just the drive-through penalty he never fell lower than 6th before crashing into Adrian Sutil.

What a mess the FIA is in. It is no wonder stewards’ decisions are so erratic and unpredictable. The FIA do not even appear to know what their own rules are. This is shown in the FIA’s embarrassingly wrong-footed attempts to debunk the Ferrari International Assistance theory. What a cock-up.

But if the vote was designed to assert Max Mosley’s authority, it has surely not worked. There are still the same calls for his resignation, even from people like Luca di Montezemolo (if he could make his mind up about it) and Bernie Ecclestone.

Mosley’s critics can still point out that the countries that voted for Max Mosley were mostly represented by small clubs, some of them caravan clubs who have not the slightest bit of interest in motor racing. The Dutch body, ANWB, went as far as to point out that smaller clubs potentially had a lot to gain financially from voting for Max Mosley.

It is said that the FIA clubs that voted in favour of Max Mosley represented as little as 5% of the FIA clubs’ total membership. This vote has done anything but put a lid on the controversy.

Max Mosley said in his letter a few weeks ago that he intended to stay on as FIA President, implying that he was the only person capable of keeping the FIA together in a time of “crisis”. Well, it looks to me as though if anything his desperation to keep his grubby hands on the steering wheel has exacerbated any crisis there may have been. In fact, it has created a new crisis.

The German body ADAC has already reduced its level of participation in the FIA and the American AAA is hinting that it will do much the same thing. Those are two of the biggest clubs in the FIA and such a split undoubtedly weakens the FIA. Indeed, if the ADAC continues to distance itself from the FIA, the Nürburgring may not return to the F1 calendar.

Way to contain a crisis. Of course, Max Mosley should have done the honourable thing and resigned as soon as the allegations were revealed. Any other public figure would do this. Max Mosley’s ability to hang on to power may have come as a surprise to outsiders who are acquainting themselves with this despicable little man for the first time. But we all know from the many years he has been in charge of F1 that he is not an honourable man.

I can well believe Bernie Ecclestone when he says that Max Mosley’s claim that he will give up the post in 2009 is a bluff. After all, Max Mosley already did resign in 2004 before changing his mind. And do the actions of Max Mosley over the past few months really look like the actions of someone who will be happy to give up the post in a year’s time anyway? Hardly. This man is truly desperate to hang on to his position. Who is to say that Mosley won’t try to remain in his position as FIA President until he dies as Bernie asserts?

As Bernie Ecclestone says, Max Mosley is a man who enjoys conflict. Indeed, we now know rather too much about the kicks he gets out of “robust” dealings and handing out big punishments. How can we take Max Mosley seriously any more? A lot of people thought that last year’s $100 million-sized punishment of McLaren (a value plucked straight out of a cheesy movie dialogue) was completely out of proportion. Well I think we all now suspect some new reasons behind his behaviour last year. How are we to trust the FIA the next time they decide to punish someone? The jokes will write themselves.

Max Mosley has lost all credibility. Since the story broke, the man has been uninvited left, right and centre. Uninvited from Bahrain. Uninvited from Israel. Uninvited from Spain. Unwelcome in Monaco. Meeting after meeting cancelled. This is a man who is patently unfit to do his job any more — and he knows it himself as he has offered to leave all public representation to his deputies.

He might have won the vote, but the FIA is like a banana republic. The credible voices are opposed to him. And no dodgy confidence vote victory will restore Mosley’s credibility. Will governments now be eager to start meeting him again all of a sudden? Will the royal families of Bahrain, Spain and Monaco be willing to shake his hand now? Of course not.

So where now for the FIA? As I have already suggested, it seems clear that Mosley’s decision to hang on at all costs has exacerbated or even created a conflict in F1′s corridors of power. Far from patching up any conflict, Max Mosley has worsened it. I am sure that if he resigned in the first place, a smooth transition would have been much easier to achieve than it will be now.

In Bernie Ecclestone, Max Mosley has created a formidable enemy. Who is to say now that the FIA will retain control over F1? In Clive’s interesting post on the future of the FIA, he suggests that we may be seeing the end of the FIA as governing body of F1. And why not?

I have thought for a very long time now that the FIA was far too strong — that it put far too much power in the hands of just one person. And the recent talks of a split between sporting and touring clubs rather suggests to me that there is no obvious reason why the sporting and road-motoring roles of the FIA really need to be dealt with together in the same organisation.

Does Formula 1 really need to be under the control of the FIA? I think not. Say what you want about Bernie Ecclestone, but if you ask me I would choose Bernie over Max any day. We may complain from time to time about Bernie Ecclestone, but at least he is not malicious in my view. Max Mosley is pure poison from top to bottom.

Bernie Ecclestone must have been spitting feathers. I know I would have been (hell, I was anyway). Furthermore, the whole saga just went to show that Max Mosley does not care about the interests of Formula 1 in general. He is only interested in throwing his weight around and helping out Ferrari.

Now they are engaged in a public war of words through the medium of the letter. After Max Mosley’s stunt last week of sending a letter to the FIA club presidents in a last-ditch bid to save his bacon, Bernie Ecclestone yesterday returned the favour to try and dispel Mosley’s claims.

By now it is pretty clear that Max Mosley’s decision to hold a General Assembly in June was a ploy to buy himself some time. He will be hoping that a combination of the time spent to let the scandal die down a bit and his new conspiracy theories will be enough for him to see off a confidence vote in just over a week’s time.

But Max Mosley is surely mistaken if he thinks his letter will help put him in the clear. Keith Collantine has already cast his eye over the letter, and I have to agree with the points he has made.

Mosley claims that he has received 62 letters of support, and only 13 asking him to resign. But this total represents a small proportion of the 222 votes that are eligible to be cast in the confidence vote. And, as Keith has pointed out, those who want Mosley to stay are more likely to write to him and say so. Mosley’s attempt to demonstrate that he has widespread support falls flat.

He then goes on to suggest that allowing the next FIA President to be chosen democratically would be detrimental to the interests of the FIA. Beautiful. I would have thought that the FIA clubs would find that quite insulting.

In the letter he goes on to bring up some spurious allegations about negotiations between the FIA and the Formula One Commercial Rights Holder (CRH) (who is, to all intents and purposes, Bernie Ecclestone). Mosley reveals that the 100 Year Agreement between the FIA and the CRH is currently under renegotiation. Quite how Max Mosley has got himself into a situation where he needs to renegotiate a “100 Year Agreement” which was supposedly settled back in 2001 is glossed over in the letter.

Mosley alleges that the CRH is angling, “in effect to take over Formula One completely”. This includes giving the CRH the right to determine regulations.

However, as has been pointed out today by Pitpass, such an arrangement would not be allowed by the European Commission anyway. And this fact is the very reason why the FIA and the CRH are separate. Max Mosley seems to be suggesting that Bernie Ecclestone intends not only to ignore the EC’s demands and take over F1, but also that Bernie thinks he will get away with it. Bernie isn’t that stupid. The allegation simply doesn’t add up.

In the next sentence Max Mosley asserts that such an arrangements would be detrimental to the FIA’s ability to protect “traditional Grands Prix”. For one thing, this is clearly an attempt to gain votes from some countries whose Grands Prix are currently under threat. I do wonder exactly what powers the FIA has to protect “traditional Grands Prix”.

If such a power exists, the FIA is surely not doing a very good job of it. Last year the calendar did not contain the German Grand Prix and it will be doing the hokey-cokey with the Nürburgring-based grand prix (whatever it gets called in the end) for the foreseeable future. The Belgian Grand Prix, held at the hugely popular historic Spa-Francorchamps, has been only a semi-permanent fixture in the calendar since the start of this century.

The fact also that the French and British (and now Australian) Grands Prix are constantly operating underneath the Sword of Damocles suggests that this ability to “protect traditional Grands Prix” is a very empty concept.

Sure enough, what exactly constitutes a “traditional Grand Prix” is not defined, and seems to be just a hazy concept present only somewhere in the darkest recesses of Max Mosley’s head. It is a meaningless fig-leaf.

Mosley goes on to point out that “there has been a struggle for control of Formula One that goes back to the original Concorde Agreement in 1981.” Pointing this out is presumably supposed to scare the voters into selecting the status quo option. But this seems like a very odd tactic to me.

Max Mosley has been in charge of the sport for the majority of that period — since 1991. The fact that Max Mosley himself admits that he has been unable to put a lid on this “struggle for control” says it all. Why should the voters be persuaded to keep someone in on the basis that they can see off this “struggle for control” when that person has evidently failed to do so for the past 17 years?

He then undermines these arguments by promising that he will step down in 2009 anyway! What a joke. Max Mosley’s letter seems to be a last-ditch, desperate attempt to save his reputation. The notion that Bernie Ecclestone was somehow involved in the News of the World allegations looks paranoid (especially when there is a rather simpler explanation — News International getting its own back).

The fact is that Max Mosley himself knows that his position is untenable. This is evident from the fact that — despite beating his chest about the fact that he is attending the Monaco Grand Prix — he is spending the entire weekend locked up in his private offices and, on his rare traipses outdoors, refuses to answer any questions from the media. This whole thing stinks of someone who can’t bear to go down without bringing others with him — hence his cack-handed attempt to bring Bernie Ecclestone into the centre of this whole sorry saga.

Yesterday Bernie Ecclestone responded with a letter of his own. In it, Ecclestone asserts his support for the FIA being the “sole body governing international motor sport” and confirms that the CRH “supports and concurs” with the European Commission’s requirements to keep the commercial and regulatory branches of F1 separate. He confirms that the CRH has no interest in controlling regulations, while pointing out that the FIA’s decisions should not be detrimental to the commercial interests of F1.

In fact, there is not anything very controversial in the letter at all — which you would expect, since Bernie Ecclestone had to defend himself. But it does add to the amount of arrows that seem to point to the fact that Max Mosley is not quite telling the whole truth in his letter of last week.

What is interesting about the letter is the constant emphasis on how it is in the interests of F1 for the FIA to be led by a “respected” President. And Max Mosley is anything but respected nowadays.

The sum of these two letters has been pointed out by Clive at F1 Insight: “Max either admits to lying or has to call Bernie a liar.”

Meanwhile, there are suggestions that the Thursday press conference at the Monaco Grand Prix was rigged. The panel was stuffed full of Max Mosley’s cronies, friends and allies. There are suggestions, too, that conference moderator Bob Constanduros was pressured into asking a question about Max Mosley. Funny how all this should happen at the last grand prix before the General Assembly.

Over the course of the Monaco Grand Prix weekend, it is becoming clear that Bernie Ecclestone has completely withdrawn any support he had left for Max Mosley. First he pointed out that Mosley’s letter was just “a smokescreen to stop all the other nonsense”.

In the Telegraph he was even stronger:

Everybody’s wrong except him. Everybody was involved in the orgy except him. He is just lashing out at anything he can. If he wants me to be the enemy he should be very careful because if he makes me an enemy I could make sure that he never whips anybody again.

I’m not sure about the bravado at the end there, but Bernie is absolutely right about Max Mosley here. Throughout this whole saga, Max Mosley has been trying to build conspiracies, shift the blame, and try to make out that it’s the News of the World that has brought the sport into disrepute. But no-one forced Max Mosley to whip prostitutes in a basement. Say what you want about the privacy issue (and I certainly have my opinions there), but once the facts are in the open there is nothing you can do about it. And it is no-one’s fault but Max Mosley’s.

But today that injunction was refused and the newspapers has hit back with a double-whammy. In addition to republishing the original video, the newspaper has uploaded two audio clips that depict Max Mosley speaking English in a mock German accent. One of these is the already infamous quote, “Zey need more of ze punishment I sink.”

The purpose behind publishing the new audio clips is to counter Max Mosley’s claims that the only reason he spoke German during the session was because some of the prostitutes themselves were German. This is at the heart of Mosley’s attempts to disprove claims that the session had a Nazi theme. But it does not explain why Mosley would be speaking English in a fake German accent.

It is very interesting that, as Pitpass noted last week, Max Mosley is not suing the News of the World for libel. You would think that if the allegations were false then Mosley would have little difficulty in winning a case against a newspaper which has put forward such over-the-top and cartoon-like allegations. This would particularly be the case in the UK which has famously strict libel laws. The fact that he is not suing for libel makes Mosley’s denials seem pretty empty.

Max Mosley appears mostly to be concerned about the invasion of privacy which the FIA has described as “apparently illegal”. It is worth remembering that less than a year ago such apparent illegalities were of no concern to Max Mosley as long as it assisted him in his personal vendetta against Ron Dennis.

As Grandprix.com reminds us, the World Motor Sport Council met in September to discuss a list of text messages and phone calls between Mike Coughlan and Nigel Stepney. The validity of the evidence was brought into question. Here was Mosley’s response:

The World Council’s only concern is whether that list is accurate and truthful. We are not concerned with whether there are issues over how that is obtained. Unless there is evidence that it is forged or inaccurate, we will take it on its face value. We do not enter a debate about Italian law; we have neither the time nor the skills for that.

Funny how he sings a different tune today. Max Mosley’s defence appears to be crumbling.

Today’s events, however, represent a real legal stumbling block for Max Mosley. The injunction was refused on the basis that the video is already in the public domain and you cannot reasonably expect to remove it from the public domain. This is the same argument that has been used by those who are arguing for Max Mosley to resign. It is a good point.

However, as Craigblog points out, it is nevertheless surprising that this ruling went against Max Mosley. Had the injunction been granted, it would have sent out a strong message to everyone about the use of this video.

Now, media outlets have effectively been given absolute free reign to use it. As we have seen, the News of the World has now taken the opportunity to upload new clips. And at lunchtime today I was amazed to hear the original video clip being played in full on BBC Radio 5 Live. If the video was in the public domain in the first place, today it is in the public domain deluxe.

Meanwhile, it has been announced today that the FIA General Assembly will now meet on 3rd June. This will include a confidence vote which will be held as a secret ballot. I would be amazed if Max Mosley were to win the vote. Meanwhile, the FIA will be lumbered with a lame duck President for almost two more months.

The letter has been taken apart by Ollie, Negative Camber and Clive.

One the face of it the letter is a confession. However, he denies the “Nazi connotation”. This might be key if Mosley wants to survive as FIA President. It is generally agreed that if it was a mere sex scandal, people would not have been so offended. It is the alleged Nazi element that has riled most people.

But can we be convinced that there was no Nazi connotation? Planet-F1 says that Mosley could be heard on the video saying in a German accent, “She needs more of ze punishment.” And according to Clive,

not only were the participants dressed in Nazi uniforms, but at least one was attired in concentration camp pajamas.

Whatever Mosley’s explanation that this is not a Nazi fantasy is, it had better be convincing.

We now come on to another uncomfortable point of the letter, which is Mosley’s seeming implication that the fact that this information came about as a result of a private investigation somehow exonerates him. We can see that this is what Mosley believes as he continually puts the blame for his current predicament on those who did the investigation, and not himself for behaving in the way that he did.

Regrettably you are now familiar with the results of this covert investigation and I am very sorry if this has embarrassed you or the club…

I shall now devote some time to those responsible for putting this into the public domain but above all I need to repair the damage to my immediate family who are the innocent and unsuspecting victims of this deliberate and calculated personal attack.

How utterly outrageous. Max Mosley’s family are not “the innocent and unsuspecting victims of this deliberate and calculated personal attack.” They are the innocent and unsuspecting victims of Max Mosley’s offensive behaviour.

I have said often enough that an invasion of someone’s private life is not acceptable. I do not for one second subscribe to the News of the World style of journalism. Samuel has been particularly vocal in the comments to a previous post here. For instance:

Western democracies defend the right of privacy for everyone. The devil himself should have the right to maintain his private life private. I firmly believe in civil rights so for me Max is the only victim. Period. For me it’s the end of the story.

This may be true, but the fact is that nothing can be done about that now. It is a sunk cost. The damage has been done, and Max Mosley’s privacy has been invaded. Wringing our hands about that will do nothing.

We now have to face the apparent reality that Max Mosley has hired prostitutes for an allegedly Nazi-themed sex orgy. The motor racing community has to ask itself: now that we have knowledge of Max Mosley’s behaviour, is he an appropriate person to be running the FIA? And the answer must surely be ‘no’.

Mosley himself knows this. It appears as though he will not attend the Bahrain Grand Prix. Bernie Ecclestone revealed that the Bahraini Royal Family would not appreciate it. No shit, Sherlock.

So will they appreciate it in 12 months’ time when Formula 1 next races in Bahrain? Will the King Juan Carlos appreciate it when F1 moves to Spain in a few weeks’ time? We can go on throughout the calendar. No-one will appreciate it. This severely restricts the ability of Formula 1′s powers-that-be to do the deals that are essential to the survival of the sport. For this reason alone, Max Mosley must resign.

But as if that was not enough, the rumours that have come out since then have rubbed salt into the wound as far as I’m concerned. You can be assured that Max Mosley is not embarrassed about these rumours, and indeed he has partially confirmed them, without a hint of shame, in his letter.

It demonstrates everything we know about Mosley’s arrogance, unsavoury thirst for power and complete self interest that he refuses to stand down as FIA President. Not only that, but he now apparently wants to stand for another term as FIA President! You would never expect Mosley to do the honourable thing, but this just takes the biscuit.

Then there is the fact — which Mosley parades in his letter — that he has received “a very large number of messages of sympathy and support from those within the FIA”. This just demonstrates that the FIA has been filled with Max Mosley lackeys and yes-men over the past decade and a half.

If for anything else, Max Mosley has revealed himself to be unfit for the role of the FIA’s Presidency due to his failure to face up to the truth and for his despicable attempts to blame others for his own wrongdoings.

It is clear that Max Mosley has brought the sport of Formula 1 into disrepute. There can be no doubt about this. This was, you will recall, the same thing that McLaren were found guilty of last year in Max Mosley’s personal, vendetta-driven “spy(sic)gate” farrago. I await the $100 million fine landing on Mosley’s desk. But of course, under Mosley’s direction, you can never expect the FIA to hand out punishments consistently.

Update: Max Mosley is now claiming that the only reason he was speaking German was because some of the prostitutes were German.