Mosley won't stand for another term

[BDunnell]

Your hatred for Max is puzzling me. Any chance you are Ron Dennis, Martin Withmarsh or Norbert Haug?!

Nice to see the patented ioan automatic post generator throwing that one out again...

[Knock-on]

Nice to see the patented ioan automatic post generator throwing that one out again...

Now you've done it.

Go straight to the "Max Hater, Ron Luvver, Fanboy" club for that one!!

Do not go, do not collect £200.

The FIA President's comments about Jackie Stewart are a different issue. Yes, Max made them in the light of JYS expressing his opinion of the way the FIA dealt with the McLaren case, but in my view the comments have been insulting and totally inappropriate for an FIA President to make of an F1 World Champion.

For a comparison take a look how one team owner disagreed with JYS's opinion expressed about his own team:

It wouldn't have been hard for the FIA President to express his disagreement in a similar way, but then it wouldn't have been Max would it. Max holds a grudge and two issues stand out in that respect. 1) JYS was not entirely complimentary about car Max's March organisation provided to the Tyrrell team for much of the 1970 season, and then 2) the demands from the FIA of the Stewart F1 team to provide guarantees that they had the finances in place to compete in their second season.

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.

For me, Stewart insulted the FIA and in doing so insulted its President....he therefore deserved an insult in return.

[BDunnell]

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.

For me, Stewart insulted the FIA and in doing so insulted its President....he therefore deserved an insult in return.

I really, really feel you treat the FIA and its President with undue reverence. You seem to suggest that it and he are beyond criticism. Do you apply the same reasoning to, for example, politicians of the parties you don't support, or do you consider them fair game for insults?

[speeddurango]

It's sort of pathetic to see people cheering on his retirement without having any idea what he's done.

[markabilly]

OK, what is the criteria for bringing the sport into disrepute. It's hardly a measurable quality.

Is it having the President refused entry to GP's?
Is it international ridicule in the media.
Is it people in pubs who never knew who Max was laughing about his antics?
Is it being paid to sell the commercial rights of F1 for a 10th of their value?
Is it lying to the media?
Is it conducting a personal vendetta against a team?
Is it insulting a 3 times WDC and ambassador for the sport?

I've lots more. So, what is your measure or shall we dispose with the semantics of the word and say that someone that has committed just 1 of those misdemeanours isn't fit to run the FIA.

Your problem is that you expect people in such positions to have high standards of conduct and morals....

Like you, I can't stand the NotW and think Max is damaging for Motorsport based on what he has done to F1. Things like the 300million bribe for gifting the rights to bernie and fixing the championship to gift Benetton and Schumacher the title amongst others.

I also agreed that this was an invasion of his privacy and he has the right to cheat on his wife, lie to his family and hire prostitutes to act out a S&M German Prison fantasy. Not my cuppa tea but as long as it's behind closed doors, it's his conscience.

Where he dips his wick is none of my concern.

Problem is and remains it is NO longer behind closed doors.....and while I ignored the NOTW stuff, when he took the stand and said what he did say and described what he has done, in public, all to win some rinky dink lawsuit where all of the enormous sum of chump change of $120k (for Max in comparsion to his 300 million and $70k per year apartment for his prostitute) goes to charity, and all those fees to lawyers, well now the real inside view of max is out....and the behavior described in these two posts is demonstrated as perfectly consistent with a perverted, sadistic state of mind, and the moral character one would expect of an untrustworthy pimp who does not know the meaning of honesty.

What you must understand that while some might expect better behavior from someone in that position, for some others with the vested interests, it is merely an insignifigant matter of no concern,.......but if it were RD doing something like that, we all know where certain Maxie supporters would be jumping, with both feet.

Hypocrisy and being "exonerated" by the sole testimony of his group of whores is really demonstrating the higher level of hypocrisy and depravity then I thought rationally possible from someone in such a position.

The actions of "Mac cheaters" is different from max's own admitted behavior, because he was lieing, stealing and cheating on people he allegedly loved rather than competitors like Mac was doing. How much more likely is he to lie and steal from those who are business asociates and others? Well duuuh

[ArrowsFA1]

But Ron Dennis was responding to Stewarts opinion that Kovalianen be a de-facto Number 2, which is not in itself an insult.

True, but it is a question RD has answered time and time again, so he could have fired off a dismissive response. Instead, his tone was respectful while still rejecting JYS's view.

Whereas stating that the FIA was indulging in a witch-hunt against Mclaren, with all the intentional imagery of a witch-hunt being totally without facts to back up a verdict but rather the actions of a collective hatred, was utterly incorrect and, as Max rightly pointed out, had Stewart been a party to the facts as the FIA had in their possesion, then he wouldn't have made such a daft statement.

I think the point that JYS was not a party to the full facts is an important one. Few people had all the facts, but on the basis of the facts available there was an impression (JYS was not alone in holding this view) that the FIA were over zealous in their pursuit of McLaren. He was perfectly entitled to express his view, just as Max was perfectly entitled to refute that opinion.

However, to refute the opinion in the way that he did was, as Damon Hill wrote in his letter to Autosport, "nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Strong stuff, but there was (and remains) a view that Max 'crossed a line' with his comments.

[markabilly]

Interesting article, keeps describing woman E as being morally bankrupt, lack of morality and decency, lack of loyalty and faith...funny I can not tell there is any difference between Woman E and Maxie....indeed, at first thought the article was refferring to him

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=35634

But when you wrestle with pigs in the mud....birds of a feather hang together...fruit don't fall far from the tree.....

All things considered the FIA and Max deserve each other

[markabilly]

True, but it is a question RD has answered time and time again, so he could have fired off a dismissive response. Instead, his tone was respectful while still rejecting JYS's view.

I think the point that JYS was not a party to the full facts is an important one. Few people had all the facts, but on the basis of the facts available there was an impression (JYS was not alone in holding this view) that the FIA were over zealous in their pursuit of McLaren. He was perfectly entitled to express his view, just as Max was perfectly entitled to refute that opinion.

However, to refute the opinion in the way that he did was, as Damon Hill wrote in his letter to Autosport, "nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Strong stuff, but there was (and remains) a view that Max 'crossed a line' with his comments.

Not in max's mind. As a practioner of sadism, his punishment of JYS crossed no lines. Indeed it brought no blood. Therefore "utmost" is hardly an appropriate term for Max's behavior.

Strange that Hill would write:"nothing other than a wicked joke designed to visit the utmost humiliation on its victim...It is conduct most unbecoming of an FIA president and, in my humble view, brought the sport into disrepute, a crime he seems so keen to eradicate...I would like to emphasise that my motive for writing is sheer indignation and outrage at what I see as abuse."

Well now, imagine that. Damon Hill has more insight as Max's mental state than I would have thought possible at the time he wrote that. Hill's opinion has now been proven true as what Hill describes "abuse" and "humilation on its victim" is merely conduct consistent with max's own court testimony as to his real character and joys in life.

BINGO

And one could add in the following from the same letter:"Regardless or not of whether he was alluding to his dyslexia, what he said was a gross insult to one of the sport's leading figures over the last four decades and a thrice world champion. Not only is it bad manners, it also calls into question the character and judgment of the man who represents motor sport throughout the world through the august institution of the FIA." No way it could call that into question, as after all, max has been "vindicated" , but does leave open the question as with that insight into Max's judgment and character, did Hill know someone in M15......

[markabilly]

And I forgot to add, how much hypocrisy does it take to distinguish between actually beating "make beleive" prisoners in a prison camp while wearing a german military jacket is very different from wearing a military jacket with nazi sysmbols while actually beating make-believe prisoners..where the former constitutes "vindication" and the latter does not.

sadism, racism and nazism are fundamentally the same mental disease and have the same foundation for inflecting brutality on those laid helplessly before them--a desire to inflict pain on those who are thought to be inferior and unworthy of respect because they are members of a certain group, be they "half-wits", jewish, female or male, black, brown or whatever.