Stewart calls fore Mosley's Resignation

[Tazio]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1759167.0.0.php

Sir Jackie Stewart has called for Max Mosley, the president of Formula One's ruling body, the FIA, to step down from his job, following a series of controversies during the current Grand Prix season.

Stewart, the 68-year-old three-times world champion, was recently described as a "certified halfwit" by Mosley, a remark which has attracted widespread condemnation from the majority of F1 followers, including Damon Hill, the last Briton to win the world drivers' championship.

[DazzlaF1]

Strong words there but i agree with Sir Jackie 100% :up:

[Valve Bounce]

This is the point which makes the whole thing a farce: "Can you imagine the FIA going to Ferrari, while Michael Schumacher was at the helm, and insisting that his No.2 Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine, was accorded the same privileges and that both men had to race on an equal footing?"

[Tazio]

No!

[ICKE]

What authority does this senile old man have? Nothing, he should just go home because he has nothing on Mosley and the FIA, just his biased views and glorified image of mr Dennis and Hamilton.

[trumperZ06]

;) Hhmmm... well said, Jackie Stewart !!!

I said when Spygate first came out... early on...

that I didn't think Mad Max would survive this Circus.

You can bet Mercedes, as well as other Companies that are directly involved in Formula One... wouldn't be sad to see Maxie... GO !!!

Max has not only made himself look foolish... with this mess... he has tarnished the sport and brought the FIA into "Disrepute" !!!

In other words... as at Indy in 2005, Max has created another... FIAsco !!!



:s mokin: Trumper

[Tazio]

What authority does this senile old man have? Nothing, he should just go home because he has nothing on Mosley and the FIA, just his biased views and glorified image of mr Dennis and Hamilton.
Son, you are too young to know.

[Ari]

Sorry Jackie you're wrong on this one. This whole thing came about because Jackie defended Hamilton and said the FIA had no idea what they were doing regarding the situation of him being potentially penalised.

The FIA had every right to look into the incident with Hamilton, Webber and Vettel and Jackie should have just kept his trap shut and just let the process go through. Instead he ranted and raved about what a travesty of justice the whole thing was. Fair that he has an opinion but there's a constructive means in which to convey that opinion.

[truefan72]

Son, you are too young to know.

:up:

well said

[Ari]

This is the point which makes the whole thing a farce: "Can you imagine the FIA going to Ferrari, while Michael Schumacher was at the helm, and insisting that his No.2 Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine, was accorded the same privileges and that both men had to race on an equal footing?"

If the team had publicly come out and stated there was no #1 driver then it would not be obscene to suggest, no.

That said, I don't ever recall Todt discussing Schumacher and Rubens as them and us....?

[truefan72]

Sorry Jackie you're wrong on this one. This whole thing came about because Jackie defended Hamilton and said the FIA had no idea what they were doing regarding the situation of him being potentially penalised.


Ari you are still missing the boat lad

a) it doesn't matter if Stewart defended Hamilton, it doesn't give MM the right to say what he said, and has the head of FIA it certainly is not the right thing to do.

b) in fact what you are advocating is that it is ok for him to receive that sort of treatment because he was "defending Hamilton"

Where was his outrage when many others, current and past heavily criticized the FIA for their handling of Schumacher and Ferrari, How come he didn't see fit to unleash such bile then, or is it just reserved for McClaren, RD and LH.

Even if you agree with the FIA stance towards McClaren, you cannot possibly agree that their handling of the matter, from the hearings to comments by MM to the latest McClaren oversight fiasco has been top notch

If you don't think that MM's reaction to Stewart was excessive, or that his institution of an oversight in Brazil of McClaren is intrusive, then there is no point in debating further, as you can't see beyond your bias.

The real issue is the way MM handled the situation and not the underlying comments by Stewart, which incidentally, he is fully entitled to speak about, as are you or anybody else, what would be inappropriate and completely undignified would be for the president of the FIA to lash out in such an uncouth manner.

boy this is exhausting and tiresome to explain over and over again.

[Tazio]

Instead he ranted and raved about what a travesty of justice the whole thing was. Fair that he has an opinion but there's a constructive means in which to convey that opinion.
First of all I respect, and agree with some of the points you made in your post.
These are JYS' words. Do you consider them rantings, and something less than constructive?

"Perhaps Max Mosley has been in the job too long. I definitely think that he should consider his position and that a new president should be head- hunted from outwith the sport, so there is no conflict of interest."


I surely don't!

[mstillhere]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines/display.var.1759167.0.0.php

Sir Jackie Stewart has called for Max Mosley, the president of Formula One's ruling body, the FIA, to step down from his job, following a series of controversies during the current Grand Prix season.

Stewart, the 68-year-old three-times world champion, was recently described as a "certified halfwit" by Mosley, a remark which has attracted widespread condemnation from the majority of F1 followers, including Damon Hill, the last Briton to win the world drivers' championship.

I see that actually everybody here is missing the point (and I am disappointed to still see people in denial about the spy gate situation). Who remembers what has the FIA said about McLaren and Alonso? For those of you who suffer of very severe short memory, the FIA said that those pilots who would voluntarely provide the FIA with information about the spy gate would be able to keep their super licenses and also warned their teams (McLAren) no to seek revenge against the whistle blowers. Are you guys with me so far? OK. Then, because of complaints coming from the Spanish representative of the FIA and FA about strange episodes continuing happening to FA (tires unevenly inflated. for example), the FIA decided to make sure thet there is no "retribution" against FA especially after RD himself said that the team, in the last race, was no racing against Kimi, but against Alonso. After saying something like that, does he still look like someone who is actually FULLY intentioned to give both drivers the same car to you? Now, am I making this up? Are you guys actually able to read the news and eventually...retain the information? Or, you have already your mind made up, so whatever happens, if it is not what you want to hear (McLAren winning, ooopps..Lewis winning, that is), then it's a lie, trash, whatever. Get out your denial state. This is reality.
PS I need a vacation. This is too stressfull :)

[Valve Bounce]

If the team had publicly come out and stated there was no #1 driver then it would not be obscene to suggest, no.

That said, I don't ever recall Todt discussing Schumacher and Rubens as them and us....?

No!! he just told Rubens to "MOVE OVER"

[ICKE]

What´s the point? Team orders were not illegal back then.

[Ari]

Ari you are still missing the boat lad
Oi! Only my grandpappy calls me a lad!! :p


a) it doesn't matter if Stewart defended Hamilton, it doesn't give MM the right to say what he said, and has the head of FIA it certainly is not the right thing to do.
I don't disagree with that. What Max said was really childish and silly. Even if he disagreed with Jackie calling him a "certified halfwit" is completely out of line.


b) in fact what you are advocating is that it is ok for him to receive that sort of treatment because he was "defending Hamilton"
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? My post stated that Jackie is entirely due his opinion and I believe he's given enough to the sport and knows enough for that opinion to carry weight. My post had absolutely no bias re Hamilton whatsoever.... if I'm wrong on that one, please feel free to highlight where.


Where was his outrage when many others, current and past heavily criticized the FIA for their handling of Schumacher and Ferrari, How come he didn't see fit to unleash such bile then, or is it just reserved for McClaren, RD and LH.
Personally, I don't think others went to the same extent that Jackie did. In fact, I'm not even certain we're talking about the same thing here! I saw Jackie came out and absolutely gave it to Max and the FIA regarding the Hamilton suspension during China quali. He said they have no idea what they were doing and that the whole thing was absurd and Bernie and co needed to take a good hard look at themselves. This was on SpeedTV's coverage and from my take what they took offence to. There is also the comments he made about Max being unfit for the Presidency and that they should look outside the sport for the next candidate however my belief is that it was Jackies comments during China quali which set Max off.


Even if you agree with the FIA stance towards McClaren, you cannot possibly agree that their handling of the matter, from the hearings to comments by MM to the latest McClaren oversight fiasco has been top notch
Agree with that. The whole thing has been completely botched but in saying that.... situations like this are rather irregular so it's difficult to find precedence.


If you don't think that MM's reaction to Stewart was excessive, or that his institution of an oversight in Brazil of McClaren is intrusive, then there is no point in debating further, as you can't see beyond your bias.
See above.... I do agree it was childish and excessive.


The real issue is the way MM handled the situation and not the underlying comments by Stewart, which incidentally, he is fully entitled to speak about, as are you or anybody else, what would be inappropriate and completely undignified would be for the president of the FIA to lash out in such an uncouth manner.
I disagree. I agree with you in the MM was out of line and needs to reconsider the way he approaches a situation like this, but I strongly disagree in you saying Jackie was entitled to say what he did. It's one thing to argue that you don't agree with the FIA's stance on a situation and another to, on their broadcast, call them fools and say they've no idea what they're doing.



boy this is exhausting and tiresome to explain over and over again.
To be honest, I'd not seen your opinion on this before now.

[Tazio]

I see that actually everybody here is missing the point (and I am disappointed to still see people in denial about the spy gate situation). Who remembers what has the FIA said about McLaren and Alonso? For those of you who suffer of very severe short memory, the FIA said that those pilots who would voluntarely provide the FIA with information about the spy gate would be able to keep their super licenses and also warned their teams (McLAren) no to seek revenge against the whistle blowers. Are you guys with me so far? OK. Then, because of complaints coming from the Spanish representative of the FIA and FA about strange episodes continuing happening to FA (tires unevenly inflated. for example), the FIA decided to make sure thet there is no "retribution" against FA especially after RD himself said that the team, in the last race, was no racing against Kimi, but against Alonso. After saying something like that, does he still look like someone who is actually FULLY intentioned to give both drivers the same car to you? Now, am I making this up? Are you guys actually able to read the news and eventually...retain the information? Or, you have already your mind made up, so whatever happens, if it is not what you want to hear (McLAren winning, ooopps..Lewis winning, that is), then it's a lie, trash, whatever. Get out your denial state. This is reality.
PS I need a vacation. This is too stressfull :)
I know your not talking about me since I posted this yesterday on another thread


I do feel very strongly that it appears that the tire pressure incident in China provoked this.
We must not forget however that at the time of the spy gate hearing that resulted in a $100 million fine and loss of wcc points. It was stated that McLaren could face more sanctions for the 2008 season if evidence that LH was given preferential treatment in the aftermath.
With a possibility of serious sanctions why would Ron not welcome this? As he has held very strongly (and I believe rightfully so) that they are not, or ever have given LH any advantage. Even if they PREFER that he wins.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edv]

...and so..how is this FIA representative in FA's pit going to know if a tire is underinflated by a lb or so? It's madness!

[Tazio]

What´s the point? Team orders were not illegal back then.
Team orders were illegal when Rubens rode shotgun for Mike way "back then"

[ArrowsFA1]

"There is an escalating awareness that he Mosley is being called into question over the proper governance of the FIA and his authority is being undermined, to an increasing degree, largely because we are in the most exciting F1 campaign there has been for years, and yet the papers are full of negative publicity.
"As far as I am concerned, it looks as if we are shooting ourselves in both feet, not with a pistol, but with a semi- automatic rifle, and the governing body is damaging the reputation of the whole sport and bringing it into disrepute."
Spot on :up:


"I believe there has to be greater accountability. Perhaps Max Mosley has been in the job too long. I definitely think that he should consider his position and that a new president should be head- hunted from outwith the sport, so there is no conflict of interest."
Spot on :up:


"Formula One is a domain in which the owners pay the drivers and recruit the mechanics to design the car, and the governing body should have no say in the internal workings of any team."
Spot on :up:

Once again Sir Jackie Stewart shows himself to have a firm grip on the reality of what has gone on this season, and what should be done about it.

Max Mosley has lost his grip, and throwing insults around as he has done just confirms it.

[Valve Bounce]

"I believe there has to be greater accountability. Perhaps Max Mosley has been in the job too long. I definitely think that he should consider his position and that a new president should be head- hunted from outwith the sport, so there is no conflict of interest."

I propose they hire Kevin Sheedy.

[Ranger]

Well who decides the replacement? because Mosley WAS re-elected in 2004 (after resignation) out of a lack of a suitable replacement. Considering how much schtick he's been copping lately, still no-one has suggested a proper replacement for the job. (hint hint!)

However "out of control" Mosley's comments may seem, Balestre seemed much worse than Mosley.

[ArrowsFA1]

Well who decides the replacement? because Mosley WAS re-elected in 2004 (after resignation) out of a lack of a suitable replacement.
I've seen it suggested (can't remember where :dozey: ) that there were other candidates for the post, but they were "encouraged" to stand aside for Max hence he was re-elected "unapposed".

It's funny to read his words when he was re-elected in October 2005:

"I have made it very clear to everybody that the reason I wanted to be elected with a whole team is that the work is going to be doled out. At the moment I suppose I have still got to take responsibility for F1, but once we have got real peace I want to step back from it and have a quieter life. Everybody, all sorts of people on the 22 group, will have different jobs to do and hopefully they will get on and do them. I will really only get involved in exceptional circumstances."
His argument would be that there has not been peace and exceptional circumstances have arisen, but the question is how much has he been responsible for that?

According to Autosport (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/45479) seven F1 teams planned to oppose Mosley. Paul Stoddard said "the belief is that the FIA president has acted against the interests of the teams so many times that if F1 is to survive and to thrive, it has to be without Mosley." One team strongly in favour of his candidacy were Ferrari for whom Jean Todt said "I like Max Mosley. I like him, I rate him, I appreciate and respect what he does. And politically I support him."

[Dave B]

Irrespective of whether you agree with Stewart (and for the record I do), he was merely offering his opinion.

For somebody in a position of authority like Mosley to publicly call him "a certified halfwit" and to mock his dress sense (the family tartan of which JYS is rightly proud) is insulting beyond belief and is utterly inappropriate behaviour for somebody meant to be the public face of the FIA.

A simple apology would have made this go away, but Max stuck to his guns and dug himself in even deeper. Even now I daresay Stewart would accept an apology and put the whole matter behind him. He strikes me as quite professional like that...

[wmcot]

I must agree that Max was totally out of line with his personal attacks on JYS. There is no excuse for that and an apology should have followed almost immediately.

Saying that, there have been times when JYS has been a bit too opinionated while speaking from his personal soapbox. Just because he was a great champion doesn't mean that his opinion is always the correct one.

Finally, looking at Max's job - who would be dumb enough to take it???? No pay and you can't ever please everybody! (I'm not defending Max, just looking at the job description!)

[I am evil Homer]

Guy Frequelin would do a good job I reckon...but depends if Citroen let him go.

[Valve Bounce]

How about Lance Whitnell? Carlton just fired their captain.

[Mintexmemory]

Are the JYS trousers and cap the Stewart tartan or RBS corporate tartan (it sure as hell looks nothing like his helmet band tartan).

[seppefan]

This is the point which makes the whole thing a farce: "Can you imagine the FIA going to Ferrari, while Michael Schumacher was at the helm, and insisting that his No.2 Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine, was accorded the same privileges and that both men had to race on an equal footing?"

Spot on. Makes the whole thing a farce.

[seppefan]

What authority does this senile old man have? Nothing, he should just go home because he has nothing on Mosley and the FIA, just his biased views and glorified image of mr Dennis and Hamilton.

Moseley sure keeps good company. Amusing the comments that arrive from his supporters. Very edifying.

[Azumanga Davo]

For somebody in a position of authority like Mosley to publicly call him "a certified halfwit" and to mock his dress sense (the family tartan of which JYS is rightly proud) is insulting beyond belief and is utterly inappropriate behaviour for somebody meant to be the public face of the FIA.

I'm sure Max's dad Sir Oswald would have had something to say about his manners had he still been alive.

Oh, wait a minute...

[ioan]

Stewart comments are again biased towards the British team and driver, as always.
Max's answer was spot on.

[ArrowsFA1]

"Jackie Stewart's latest comments are as misconceived as those he made prior to the McLaren World Council hearing in September," he told autosport.com.
"During a highly charged and controversial season it is of course understandable that many in the United Kingdom feel great sympathy for the plight of McLaren and Lewis Hamilton. In the same way it is understandable for many on the continent to feel great sympathy for the plight of double world champion Fernando Alonso.
"However, it is not the role of the FIA to court popularity by supporting one party or the other. It is the role of the FIA to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors.
"If drivers from another team complain about what they consider to be the unsafe driving of a race leader in atrocious weather conditions which then results in an accident, does anyone, even Jackie Stewart, honestly believe the sporting authorities should not examine the new evidence presented to them?
"When the Spanish Motor Sport Authority seeks safeguards to ensure fair play should the international governing body ignore their request?"
Mosley added: "Jackie Stewart seems to have forgotten that McLaren received information on a daily basis for over three months plus a dossier of 780 pages from a spy in its main rival. It was for this they incurred a record sanction and expulsion from the Constructors' Championship. They did not appeal as they undoubtedly would have done had Jackie's ill-considered views had any merit.
"The bandying of partisan and ill informed comments in the media may well result in increased book sales for his new autobiography but they can do little more than confirm my view that Jackie is in no position to provide useful observations upon issues of motor sport governance."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63335

[ioan]

Finally, looking at Max's job - who would be dumb enough to take it???? No pay and you can't ever please everybody! (I'm not defending Max, just looking at the job description!)

I have a feeling that Stewart wants to get Max's place.

[rohanweb]

This is the point which makes the whole thing a farce: "Can you imagine the FIA going to Ferrari, while Michael Schumacher was at the helm, and insisting that his No.2 Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine, was accorded the same privileges and that both men had to race on an equal footing?"


so is this true & accepted by the whole F1 bandwagen that Michael schumachers former team principles,FIA were biased towards him to make him a 'great' champion of F1 by allowing the his teams to have a sidekick-2nd driver to 'support' MS only to the championship..MS & Ferrari has deployed all the cheating work openly to make MS champion.. & the FIA didnt have a say about it.

so everyone now accepts that atleast 3 or 4 championships MS won are either done of illegal activities of ferrari,renault & FIA.???

time has come for FIA to start digging the old books and deliver justice..

[Tazio]

so is this true & accepted by the whole F1 bandwagen that Michael schumachers former team principles,FIA were biased towards him to make him a 'great' champion of F1 by allowing the his teams to have a sidekick-2nd driver to 'support' MS only to the championship..MS & Ferrari has deployed all the cheating work openly to make MS champion.. & the FIA didnt have a say about it.

so everyone now accepts that atleast 3 or 4 championships MS won are either done of illegal activities of ferrari,renault & FIA.???

time has come for FIA to start digging the old books and deliver justice..
Over the last decade many teams have found ways to circumvent this rule. Thus, not compromising Mike’s championships

[Ari]

I propose they hire Kevin Sheedy.

hahaha you've got my vote!!!! :D

[Ari]

How about Lance Whitnell? Carlton just fired their captain.
....bit of a knee-jerk reaction isn't it? :p

[ArrowsFA1]

There are a few things in Max's latest utterance worth commenting on.


"...it is not the role of the FIA to court popularity by supporting one party or the other. It is the role of the FIA to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors.
Absolutely correct :up: But perhaps he would like to explain what rule is being applied by having a FIA official in the McLaren garage at the Brazilian GP, and how is appointing this official being fair or consistent?

"Jackie Stewart seems to have forgotten that McLaren received information on a daily basis for over three months plus a dossier of 780 pages from a spy in its main rival."
A daily basis? Really?

"They did not appeal as they undoubtedly would have done had Jackie's ill-considered views had any merit."
According to the team (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62603) "McLaren thinks it is in the best interests of the sport, and its goal of winning races and world championships, not to appeal". Not quite the same as Max suggests.

[ICKE]

McLaren thinks it is in the best interests of the sport, and its goal of winning races and world championships, not to appeal". Not quite the same as Max suggests.We have a winner for the naive person of the year award.

The reason why they did not appeal was simple, they got away with it and wanted to close the case. Ferrari was hoping and praying Mclaren had appealed against FIA´s decision.

[ArrowsFA1]

We have a winner for the naive person of the year award.
Cheers :beer: :laugh:

The reason why they did not appeal was simple, they got away with it and wanted to close the case. Ferrari was hoping and praying Mclaren had appealed against FIA´s decision.
Your speculation may be correct. Alternatively, had McLaren appealed then more may have come out of all of this than Ferrari would have been comfortable with. But then that's speculation again.

[ioan]

We have a winner for the naive person of the year award.

The reason why they did not appeal was simple, they got away with it and wanted to close the case. Ferrari was hoping and praying Mclaren had appealed against FIA´s decision.

100% right there, on both matters.

As Arrows posted:


"McLaren thinks it is in the best interests of the sport, and its goal of winning races and world championships, not to appeal".


They didn't appeal because of their goal of winning championships?! :rotflmao:

Alternatively, had McLaren appealed then more may have come out of all of this than Ferrari would have been comfortable with. But then that's speculation again.

It also doesn't fit in with the theory that the FIA stands for Ferrari International Assistance.

No one has yet to explain to me why, if Mclaren believed that they had been wronged by the WMSC and can prove themselves to be clean, do they not appeal to clear their name and restore their much self-publicised integrity?

Perhaps Jackie Stewart could tell us?

Then again, perhaps he couldn't, seeing as he doesn't know the definition of the term "witch-hunt".

[ioan]

Your speculation may be correct. Alternatively, had McLaren appealed then more may have come out of all of this than Ferrari would have been comfortable with.

Like what?
If Ron had anything, and I mean anything, against Ferrari he would have used it in a bid to keep their "clean" WCC title hopes. But he knew that he had no chance and that things may have rather evolved towards the 2 seasons ban.



But then that's speculation again.

And not even good one on top of that! :p :

[schmenke]

...
Max's answer was spot on.

You can't be serious ioan? :s

[trumperZ06]

:dozey: This FIAsco is heating up.

Jackie Stewart was interviewed today by Reuters ( 3:13 BST)...

and once again called for Max to resign.

Link: http//uk.reuters.com/article/motorSportsNews/idUKB4784052007101

"Interview-Motor racing-Stewart adds fuel to Mosley war of words"

:p : Mad Max is falling... deeper & deeper into a "CESSPOOL" ...

that he created!!!

:s mokin:

[ioan]

You can't be serious ioan? :s

Did you read Max's answer? I read it again and can't find anything that isn't right.

Judge for yourself, here it is:



"Jackie Stewart's latest comments are as misconceived as those he made prior to the McLaren World Council hearing in September," he told autosport.com.

"During a highly charged and controversial season it is of course understandable that many in the United Kingdom feel great sympathy for the plight of McLaren and Lewis Hamilton. In the same way it is understandable for many on the continent to feel great sympathy for the plight of double world champion Fernando Alonso.

"However, it is not the role of the FIA to court popularity by supporting one party or the other. It is the role of the FIA to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors.

"If drivers from another team complain about what they consider to be the unsafe driving of a race leader in atrocious weather conditions which then results in an accident, does anyone, even Jackie Stewart, honestly believe the sporting authorities should not examine the new evidence presented to them?

"When the Spanish Motor Sport Authority seeks safeguards to ensure fair play should the international governing body ignore their request?"

Mosley added: "Jackie Stewart seems to have forgotten that McLaren received information on a daily basis for over three months plus a dossier of 780 pages from a spy in its main rival. It was for this they incurred a record sanction and expulsion from the Constructors' Championship. They did not appeal as they undoubtedly would have done had Jackie's ill-considered views had any merit.

"The bandying of partisan and ill informed comments in the media may well result in increased book sales for his new autobiography but they can do little more than confirm my view that Jackie is in no position to provide useful observations upon issues of motor sport governance."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63335

[trumperZ06]

:p : Ioan,

Ole Maxie is trying to "Justify"...

acting like an Idiot by labeling Jackie Stewart a...

"Certified Halfwit" !!!

It's now all... "Smoke & Mirrors" !!!

Mad Max crossed the line in his tirade, where he personally insulted Jackie Stewart...

not once, but TWICE !!!

:s mokin:

[Tazio]

Quite right!

Mad Max crossed the line in his tirade, where he personally insulted Jackie Stewart...

Except that Stewart's "witch-hunt" statement is the statement of a half-wit.

[trumperZ06]

Except that Stewart's "witch-hunt" statement is the statement of a half-wit.

:p : BruHaaaHaaa... Jackie Stewart only repeated...

what many others in the press had already labeled the FIA's investigation:

"Vendictive and/or a WitchHunt" !!!

:rolleyes: Max went over the line when he insulted Jackie Stewart !!!

Then Ole Maxie repeated the insults... a second time !!!

Nobody can deny THAT !!!

:s mokin:

[Tazio]

:p : BruHaaaHaaa... Jackie Stewart only repeated...

what many others in the press had already labeled the FIA's investigation:

"Vendictive and/or a WitchHunt" !!!

:rolleyes: Max went over the line when he insulted Jackie Stewart !!!

Then Ole Maxie repeated the insults... a second time !!!

Nobody can deny THAT !!!

:s mokin:
We have a winner!
Referring to an investigation as a witch hunt
is not an inflammatory personal attack.
I want LH to lose, and I will still back Stewart on this matter.

[Dave B]

The issue isn't whether Stewart is right or wrong, but that Mosley made an unjustified personal attack on him.

Think of it in terms of forum rules. If, say, Harry Talker thinks that Ralf Schumacher is a genius on equal footing with Senna or Fangio then I'd think his opinion was wrong. Idiotic, even. I'd tell him as much. But would that make him a half-wit? Could I call him one without expecting a ban?

That's why Mosley is out of order. A man in a position of authority, and with all his political savvy, should be far above playground name-calling. If he was speaking in the heat of the moment (as we all do from time to time) then he should be big enough to apologise.

An apology wouldn't mean having to change his mind about Stewart's comments, but merely to acknowledge that Max was wrong to personally insult him.

[kalasend]

No!! he just told Rubens to "MOVE OVER"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't RB content with being #2 from day one joining Ferrari?

I am not familiar with what's going on right now at McLaren, but I certainly think that FA is still all out fighting for the WDC and would never agree to let LH have it. So it's totally different circumstances than RB@Ferrari.

See, there is rules banning favoring drivers within a team but as long as drivers are satisfactory with their treatments, FIA wouldn't really want to step in. After all team orders have been and will always be there. But at McLaren no driver had agreed to be #2, that's what everybody would reckon. Even if there indeed was someone who had agreed to be #2, which driver do you think was more likely to be?

Getting back to this Jackie Stewart's statement, I personally feel that:
1) Mosley handled Stepneygate badly? YES
2) Should he go? Maybe, and nobody would be sad to see him go anyways
3) Did Jackie Stewart put out a sound argument? NO

[trumperZ06]

The issue isn't whether Stewart is right or wrong, but that Mosley made an unjustified personal attack on him.

Think of it in terms of forum rules. If, say, Harry Talker thinks that Ralf Schumacher is a genius on equal footing with Senna or Fangio then I'd think his opinion was wrong. Idiotic, even. I'd tell him as much. But would that make him a half-wit? Could I call him one without expecting a ban?

That's why Mosley is out of order. A man in a position of authority, and with all his political savvy, should be far above playground name-calling. If he was speaking in the heat of the moment (as we all do from time to time) then he should be big enough to apologise.

An apology wouldn't mean having to change his mind about Stewart's comments, but merely to acknowledge that Max was wrong to personally insult him.

;) Yep... Maxie coulda/shoulda apologised to Jackie Stewart early on...

:rolleyes: Instead he repeated the insults... and now he's trying to justify his actions.

[ioan]

Stewart is attacking Max a few times every year with little or no reason (other than his personal ones). Yet no one says anything.
Max lashed out at him once and whole Britain is in fire.

Max was right about Stewart not minding his business, several times. This time he lost his patience and called him a "certified half wit". Big deal. If Stewart feels offended than he should seek excuses or compensation through the legal way and that's all, but all he does is to continue attacking Max. Not a very sane approach to the problem.

[trumperZ06]

Stewart is attacking Max a few times every year with little or no reason (other than his personal ones). Yet no one says anything.
Max lashed out at him once and whole Britain is in fire.

Max was right about Stewart not minding his business, several times. This time he lost his patience and called him a "certified half wit". Big deal. If Stewart feels offended than he should seek excuses or compensation through the legal way and that's all, but all he does is to continue attacking Max. Not a very sane approach to the problem.

;) Hhmmm... in spite of your wishes...

I don't think the issue is about Jackie Stewart's sanity !!!

:p : The issue is Maxie's scadalous statesments to the Press... when Max labeled Jackie Stewart a "halfwit" and questioning the way he dresses.

:rolleyes: Your making Excuses (whining once again)... doesn't retify the damages done by one... Mr. Max Mosley !!!

:s mokin:

[truefan72]

ion,

do you really know who Jackie Stewart is?

[ArrowsFA1]

The issue isn't whether Stewart is right or wrong, but that Mosley made an unjustified personal attack on him.
Exactly :up:

Stewart is attacking Max a few times every year...
Can you back that up with examples, or is that merely an exaggeration for effect?

Max was right about Stewart not minding his business...
IMHO Mosley has completely misjudged the situation and yes, it is a big deal ioan. Firstly because Stewart's comments were not personal unlike Mosley's. Secondly it seems that, like Mosley, you would deny people the right to an opinion. Thirdly, Mosley's response was an overreaction and completely inappropriate.

[ArrowsFA1]

Did you read Max's answer? I read it again and can't find anything that isn't right.
There does need to be a slight change made to one particular part which should read:

"The bandying of partisan and ill informed comments in the media can do little more than confirm the view that Max Mosley is in no position to provide useful observations upon issues of motor sport governance."

[SGWilko]

whole Britain is in fire.


Not likely, its always pi55ing with rain over here.... :laugh:

[ioan]

ion,

do you really know who Jackie Stewart is?

Better than you know how to spell other member's nicknames. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Not likely, its always pi55ing with rain over here.... :laugh:

Luckily! ;)

[ioan]

Can you back that up with examples, or is that merely an exaggeration for effect?

http://www.google.com

[ArrowsFA1]

www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
So it's an exaggeration for effect.

Meanwhile - Never Judge A Man By His Trews (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=33198) - by Mike Lawrence.

[Dave B]

There's a good piece in today's Guardian in which Stewart confirms it's not so much what Max said that irritates him, but the manner in which it was said:




Stewart has been critical of the governing body's handling of the row between McLaren and Ferrari which led to the former being fined £50m. "The president of a global federation should not be speaking in that fashion. It's politically incorrect. Mind management is the single most important thing whether you're a politician, a religious leader, a businessman, a member of the armed forces or a sports administrator.
"Max Mosley didn't stop and think before he spoke. The excuse is he said it in a moment of anger. What worries me is that if his judgment is poor here it's probably in question in other areas, particularly at the moment when enormous decisions are being made regarding the outcome of the world championship and the behaviour of other teams.

Full article here: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/motorsport/story/0,,2191926,00.html

[ioan]

So it's an exaggeration for effect.

It means that I have no time to lose trying to prove the obvious.


Meanwhile - Never Judge A Man By His Trews (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=33198) - by Mike Lawrence.

Another Brit defending Stewart by drawing a parallel between Max and some 3rd world dictators. How intelligent! :rolleyes:

Maybe they can also explain why Mosley (in their view the FIA dictator) didn't end the "witch hunt" against Ron Dennis with throwing RD and McLaren out of F1?
After all you people seem to believe that it was Max who decided everything!

[BDunnell]

Another Brit defending Stewart by drawing a parallel between Max and some 3rd world dictators. How intelligent! :rolleyes:

It's called being a bit 'politically incorrect', I believe, ioan. You said before that you liked that sort of thing.

[ioan]

It's called being a bit 'politically incorrect', I believe, ioan. You said before that you liked that sort of thing.

The only problem is that Max didn't behave in a dictatorial way. He let the WMSC to judge and decide the penalty.

[Garry Walker]

According to the team (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62603) "McLaren thinks it is in the best interests of the sport, and its goal of winning races and world championships, not to appeal". Not quite the same as Max suggests.

I hope you are intelligent enough to know better than to believe filth such as that.
FIA basically said Ron and McLaren are liars and cheaters and fined them with quite a large sum. If Ron thought they have anything against Ferrari or anything to boost their own case, McLaren would have appealed. They did not because they knew they would lose the appeal too. Nothing to do with "interests of the sport", no one allows themselves to be called cheaters if they can prove otherwise.

Autosport has edited the original article, they edited it quickly, but at the beginning the words were even harsher towards Stupid Jackie.
I fully support Mosleys comments

There's a good piece in today's Guardian in which Stewart confirms it's not so much what Max said that irritates him, but the manner in which it was said:



Full article here: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/motorsport/story/0,,2191926,00.html

I agree that Mosley should have used more tact, but then again Stewart should have used his brain too.

There was some skullduggery afoot chez Mclaren (and, just for to keep this even-handed, it may be the case that Ron himself was unaware of it), so to start shouting about a "witch-hunt" when there was the emails and the dossier evidence is not realistic.

It is also not realistic to compare the current Mclaren driver situation to that of the Schumi-era at Ferrari. Schumi never went into a title decider against his own team-mate nor having had his team-mate fall out with the team.

What is more, there is something of a precedent to what the FIA is doing. In 1989, FISA president Balestre expressed concern that Mclaren should give equal equipment to its drivers as the title went into its home-stretch.

In that instance, there was no FIA appointed observer positioned in the garage and, as it turns out, there was no need for one, but given the politics of this years title, given Alonso's comments and, no doubt wanting to actually maintain some credibility to the championship, given that should Alonso lose to Hamilton he would most likely cry foul after the event, then what, in reality, could the FIA do but put an observer in there?

If nothing else, having the observer in the garage will mean that Alonso's excuses have no credibility and that, therefore, the championship is seen to be won fairly.

It's not just for Alonso's benefit to have that observer, it's also for Hamilton and for Mclaren.

Mclaren seemed to recognize that, for which I give them credit.

[BDunnell]

I hope you are intelligent enough to know better than to believe filth such as that.
FIA basically said Ron and McLaren are liars and cheaters and fined them with quite a large sum. If Ron thought they have anything against Ferrari or anything to boost their own case, McLaren would have appealed. They did not because they knew they would lose the appeal too. Nothing to do with "interests of the sport", no one allows themselves to be called cheaters if they can prove otherwise.

Autosport has edited the original article, they edited it quickly, but at the beginning the words were even harsher towards Stupid Jackie.
I fully support Mosleys comments

And I hope you are intelligent enough to realise that calling someone 'Stupid Jackie' is not really very intelligent, nor very pleasant.

[SGWilko]

you people

Ooohhhh, can I jump up and down and shout the 'R' word?

[ArrowsFA1]

This is a non-issue in a sense but I do think that by placing an observer in the McLaren garage the FIA have given credibility to the accusations made against McLaren.

I bet Max is gutted about that :dozey:

[OTA]

More than giving credibility to the accusation of benefiting one driver( Ron made that clear with his comment that they were fighting FA not Kimi), it's a matter of responding to pressure from a "non-existent" market such as Spain.

Cheers
David

[ioan]

Ooohhhh, can I jump up and down and shout the 'R' word?

What's that?

[janneppi]

Ooohhhh, can I jump up and down and shout the 'R' word?
Only if you're aking for a short ban. ;)

[Bagwan]

I haven't noticed anyone noting that Jackie is hawking a book right now .

It'll pay him to have a few words in about this .

Jackie has his opinions . That's fine .
Spouting on about Favouritism towards Ferrari only prolonged a stupid situation .
He's uninformed as to the details , and at a loss to understand the bigger picture .
In fact , Jackie seems to think Ferrari got exactly what they wanted .
He's very wrong .

But , have you got his book yet ?

[ArrowsFA1]

He's very wrong.
He may have been wrong, but being wrong does not deny you the right to an opinion, nor does it entitle the FIA President to call you a "certified halfwit" for holding that opinion.

[Dave B]

Baggy, you and I have argued long and hard about a certain Canadian driver in the past. But we've always kept it civil and never resorted to name-calling. That's the difference here: Mosley got personal.

[ioan]

He may have been wrong, but being wrong does not deny you the right to an opinion, nor does it entitle the FIA President to call you a "certified halfwit" for holding that opinion.

So Stewart is entitled to his opinion even if he is wrong, but Max isn't even if he seems to be right!

Sooner or later you will get over the fact that McLaren were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and rightly punished (with half measure thanks to the predominantly commercial side of F1).

You might even realize the hypocrisy that Stewart is showing when he accuses Mosely of "witch hunting" against RD, while he is expressing blatant pro McLaren and Hamilton opinions.

More I think about it more I agree with Mosely's labelling of Stewart.

[BDunnell]

More I think about it more I agree with Mosely's labelling of Stewart.

You've thought about it? Could have fooled me.

[BDunnell]

So Stewart is entitled to his opinion even if he is wrong, but Max isn't even if he seems to be right!


Where does Arrows say that Mosley isn't entitled to his opinion? Nowhere.

[Bagwan]

He may have been wrong, but being wrong does not deny you the right to an opinion, nor does it entitle the FIA President to call you a "certified halfwit" for holding that opinion.

He's wrong if he thinks Ferrari got what they wanted .
They are not happy .

You can see that , can you not ?


Perhaps not a very eloquent way of expressing it , Arrows , but his point was made . Jackie knew nothing of the details , and therefore was meddling in a very delicate situation .

I respect Jackie . He was one of my idols as a kid .
But , here , he is an ignorant meddler , involved in a war of words he started .
And , I'm disappointed it happens to coincide with a book launch .

[ioan]

You've thought about it? Could have fooled me.

You won't quit personal attacks for some reason. I still fail to see why do you constantly attack the poster and not the post?

Are you related to Stewart or did I roll over your dog or something like that???

[ioan]

Where does Arrows say that Mosley isn't entitled to his opinion? Nowhere.

Here:



nor does it entitle the FIA President to call you a "certified halfwit" for holding that opinion

[Bagwan]

You've thought about it? Could have fooled me.

Can you please refrain from this type of comment ?

It does not help debate .

[BDunnell]

Apologies. Post made out of frustration in the heat of the moment.

ioan, in response to your last post, Arrows does not say in that quote that Mosley is not entitled to his opinion. Your interpretation is entirely incorrect by any standards.

[BDunnell]

You won't quit personal attacks for some reason. I still fail to see why do you constantly attack the poster and not the post?

This could be construed as a bit rich from someone who is supporting a personal attack by Max Mosley on Jackie Stewart.

[Wilderness]

Here:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
nor does it entitle the FIA President to call you a "certified halfwit" for holding that opinion
The negative modifier to the verb "to entitle", modifies the verb "to call", not "to hold".

Is it more clear if the sentence is restructured as follows? The FIA President, while entitled to his opinion, is not entitled to publicly call JYS a "certified halfwit".

Post made out of frustration in the heat of the moment.

What would Sir Jackie say?

Oh, hold on, we know...

"Max Mosley didn't stop and think before he spoke. The excuse is he said it in a moment of anger. What worries me is that if his judgment is poor here it's probably in question in other areas"

[Bagwan]

Baggy, you and I have argued long and hard about a certain Canadian driver in the past. But we've always kept it civil and never resorted to name-calling. That's the difference here: Mosley got personal.

Well , Dave , though I might have thought so , I never once called you an ignorant meddler .
I suppose Max might have been treated differently , had he used those words ? I don't think so .

They might have had a smaller stick with which to beat him , but merely saying "boo" to Jackie the cultural icon will get you a thrashing .
And , I have the same disdain for Hill , sticking his nose in where it didn't belong at all , insinuating Max was poking at Jackie's dyslexia .

I wonder if Hill's got Jackie's book yet .

[BDunnell]

What would Sir Jackie say?

Oh, hold on, we know...

"Max Mosley didn't stop and think before he spoke. The excuse is he said it in a moment of anger. What worries me is that if his judgment is poor here it's probably in question in other areas"

One difference is that I apologised. Neither did I use an insulting term.

[BDunnell]

They might have had a smaller stick with which to beat him , but merely saying "boo" to Jackie the cultural icon will get you a thrashing .
And , I have the same disdain for Hill , sticking his nose in where it didn't belong at all , insinuating Max was poking at Jackie's dyslexia .


I wondered whether it was a reference to Stewart's dyslexia, too, so Hill wasn't alone. And if he was 'sticking his nose in where it didn't belong at all', how is this worse than calling someone a halfwit?

how is this worse than calling someone a halfwit?

Or saying that someone could have fooled you that they were thinking?

Halfwit or not using the cognitive faculties.....isn't that the same?

[BDunnell]

Or saying that someone could have fooled you that they were thinking?

Halfwit or not using the cognitive faculties.....isn't that the same?

No, I don't think so. And I'm not the President of the FIA.

[janneppi]

I think five pages of the exact same arguments thrown back and forwards have just about sorted it out. You all lose.
Good bye