Has Max been a verryyy naughty boy?

[guy_smiley]

Obviously this discussion has progressed tremendously, but just to share my opinion on the original matter...

I think Max should go. In fact, I think he should have been forced out as soon as the story broke. I don't know the details that you all have pointed out (and they interesting ), but my reasoning is that if any of us got caught with an allegedly Nazi-themed orgy with five prostitues, we would probably be immediately terminated. I know I would, and I'm assuming that just about all the rest of you would be too--and none of us are the president of the FIA, a position that demands integrity, respect, and leadership, and one that is globablly visible. I understand tom_sawyers point (although it was very difficult to read ), but none of us are poking are noses into Max's personal life; the story broke, was made public to all of earth, and now we are commenting on it. We did nothing to invade Max's privacy--someone else did

But regardless, it's public now, and like some of you have said, he's now an outcast; no one will ever look at him the same, his reputation is damaged beyond repair, and if you ask me he is just embarrassing himself by not resigning. Again, like a lot of you said, the FIA needs work anyway, so let's hope that with a new president a lot of these problems you mentioned get fixed! All in the name of better racing!

Anyway, thanks for listening!

[gcdugas]

... Behind the scenes lobbying, arm twisting, threats etc. is the real reason such an exigent meeting takes two months to convene. And any smoke that Max ....

you do not seem to be aware that the FIA statues are being followed by this procedure and they actually have been that way for many years.

Actually I do know and the FIA statutes state that such a meeting shall be convened in "not less than four weeks" which is tomorrow Saturday May 3rd, not June 3rd. But the procedure they use to approve convening such a meeting could also be used to conduct the business affairs of such a meeting.... and that is by fax. Max is trying to run out the clock, buy time for lobbying/arm twisting etc.

This article says:

Mosley seems determined to ride out the storm and has initiated a fax vote from members of the FIA senate to agree that he can convene a meeting of the governing body's general assembly, made up of 222 clubs in 134 countries, in order to seek a vote of confidence.

If they can vote to convene by fax, why can't they vote to expel Max via the same mechanism? Answer: They certainly can.

To illustrate just how much of a weasel Max is, I ask you to look at the following recent events pertaining to Nazigate..... This press release from the FIA asserts that they will take the high road and refrain from commenting.

The President of the FIA has requested the President of the FIA Senate to call an Extraordinary General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the FIA statutes.

The full membership of the FIA will be invited to attend the meeting at which the widespread publicity following an apparently illegal invasion of the FIA President’s privacy will be discussed.

The FIA has noted that Mr Mosley is preparing legal proceedings against the newspaper in question.

It is anticipated that the meeting will take place in Paris. It will be held on the earliest practicable date. No further comment will be made by the FIA regarding the matter at this stage.

But what do we see? We see the blatant casting of aspersions by FIA tool Novak against McLaren. When asked to retract or clarify his comments he refused and even augmented them leaving no doubt as to the accusation. How is that for "no further comment"?

Moreover, while Max is complaining about his privacy being invaded he has hired an investigative firm to do just that to one of the "vice girls". So it is bad when someone follows and records you but it is OK when you hire someone to follow and record an adversary.

It is OK when evidence illicitly obtained (text messages and cell phone calls) are used against McLaren in the FIA Star Chamber proceedings but it is a crime when illicitly obtained video is used against you. By that logic Ron Dennis should therefore sue Max "for unlimited damages" for using illicit evidence against Mercedes McLaren.

Is there any end to Max's hypocrisy and madness? Apparently not, and that is just another reason why he should go.

[Rob W]

A lot of debate on legalities has been put forth, and in my eyes, whoever went to all this trouble to find and expose Max's little secret really didn't break any laws.

Yes they did. Filming someone covertly is illegal in the UK and most forward-thinking countries. The times when it's fine are in situation of law enforcement of legitimate surveilance - which this most definitely was not.

Having said that I think people mistake the courts refusal to ban the video as being a sign Mosley was wrong - which he wasn't. The ruling was made on practicality grounds. The video was illegally obtained and Mosely had a right to have it's dissemination halted. BUT, courts are realistic these days and when something is already widely spread online and hosted on sites overseas where the local legal clout simply can't reach motions like this are usually denied. Simply - approving his claim would open too many doors of costly but ultimately pointless activities trying to prevent the publishing of it. Factually and legally he was entirely right in his claim though. The legal system is just behind the times with regards to figuring out how to handle this interweb thing..

Other than covertly filming someone, copyright laws were also likely broken. In private - i.e. not public - places a person owns the 'rights' to their image. There are many situations where it doesn't apply - like concerts for example where by entering you accept that you can be filmed.

In any case, this is all moot. The horse has bolted. Now it just remains whether he can survive. I'm guessing they will keep him on until next year (when he claimed he was retiring anyway) and just keep mum about any details.

R

[WhiteBlue]

... If they can vote to convene by fax, why can't they vote to expel Max via the same mechanism? Answer: They certainly can. ...

if you are interested to know what the statues are please inform yourself

http://www.fia.com/thefia/statutes/Files/index.html and there article 8

... Furthermore, either at the justified request of the Clubs, Associations or Federations of at least one fifth of the countries represented within the FIA, or following an appropriate resolution of the Senate, the President shall convene at the Headquarters of the FIA an Extraordinary General Assembly which shall meet within a period of 3 months from the decision or the request which shall include a well-founded draft agenda. To this compulsory agenda, each of the FIA World Councils may add any item it shall deem advisable to be dealt with by the Extraordinary General Assembly.


Notices convening General Assemblies shall be sent to the Presidents of the Member Clubs, Associations or Federations 2 months before the date fixed for the meeting. This period shall be reduced to 1 month and a half for notices convening Extraordinary General Assemblies, which must be accompanied by a complete agenda.

from this document you see that 2 month are the regular invitation period which can only be shortened to 6 weeks if a complete agenda is enclosed in the notice. for the purpose of dealing with the Mosley affair a closed agenda would have been very detrimental. the delegates should discuss whatever they want (including potential changes to the voting mechanism). even the 6 weeks period would have required a thorough preparation that isn't possible in a day or two. so calling in the EGA within 2 month really was the fastest the FIA could manage by sticking to their own procedures. deveating from the rules of internal democracy would have damaged the legal status of Mosleys successor. that isn't desirable.

.... I think Max should go. In fact, I think he should have been forced out as soon as the story broke.....

that is an honorable view but inconsistent with the statual situation of the FIA as I have shown above. the fact of the matter is that Mosley himself decided for the shortest possible invitation period for the meeting that will decide his succession.

the only alternative way to remove Mosley from governing F1 racing would have been a revolt of the teams and the FOM cutting away from the FIA and creating a new sanctioning body.

[gcdugas]

... Furthermore, either at the justified request of the Clubs, Associations or Federations of at least one fifth of the countries represented within the FIA, or following an appropriate resolution of the Senate, the President shall convene at the Headquarters of the FIA an Extraordinary General Assembly which shall meet within a period of 3 months from the decision or the request which shall include a well-founded draft agenda. To this compulsory agenda, each of the FIA World Councils may add any item it shall deem advisable to be dealt with by the Extraordinary General Assembly.


Notices convening General Assemblies shall be sent to the Presidents of the Member Clubs, Associations or Federations 2 months before the date fixed for the meeting. This period shall be reduced to 1 month and a half for notices convening Extraordinary General Assemblies, which must be accompanied by a complete agenda.

from this document you see that 2 month are the regular invitation period which can only be shortened to 6 weeks if a complete agenda is enclosed in the notice. for the purpose of dealing with the Mosley affair a closed agenda would have been very detrimental. the delegates should discuss whatever they want (including potential changes to the voting mechanism). even the 6 weeks period would have required a thorough preparation that isn't possible in a day or two. so calling in the EGA within 2 month really was the fastest the FIA could manage by sticking to their own procedures. deveating from the rules of internal democracy would have damaged the legal status of Mosleys successor. that isn't desirable.

All well enough but please tell me, if Max were on film molesting a six year old boy, would the FIA have to wait six weeks to remove him? Even if he were arrested and put behind bars, by your logic, the procedure must run its course. Would hastily removing Max in anyway harm his successor if Max were a child molester? According to your view, haste in such a case would be "undesirable". I say his continued presence is hurting the future more than anything else.

Moreover, I assert that such a meeting is not necessary. If they can agree to convene by fax, then certainly they can dispense with convening and conduct the substance of the matter by fax as well. There is no need for an "Extraordinary Assembly". They routinely conduct affairs by fax, tele-conference etc. Calling for such a meeting is all a ruse and deflection by Max. The FIA could always name a successor at a later date which they would have to do if Max had suddenly died. What if, instead of a sexual matter, Max had become mentally incapacitated, lost his mind and started marching in the streets in a Nazi uniform, raving and issuing edicts? Would there still be a need to wait weeks for an "Extraordinary Assembly"? Who would issue the call for such a meeting? There has to be a mechanism for succession if the President were somehow incapacitated. And certainly it could be argued that Max has morally incapacitated himself in addition to violating FIA Article 27, Section 5.

Article 27 of the Statutes of the FIA:

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

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

It is clear that Max is hiding behind the rule book so he can delay things while appearing "procedurally correct" and pious. Remember this is the same person who circumvents, violates, and blatantly defies any and all written agreements that stand in his way; who ignores the rules for evidence admissibility in civilized courts (McLaren text messages and cell phone records illicitly obtained), and who has spit on the Concorde Agreement. It is only fitting that he is met with such an end.

.... I think Max should go. In fact, I think he should have been forced out as soon as the story broke.....

that is an honorable view but inconsistent with the statual situation of the FIA as I have shown above. the fact of the matter is that Mosley himself decided for the shortest possible invitation period for the meeting that will decide his succession.

the only alternative way to remove Mosley from governing F1 racing would have been a revolt of the teams and the FOM cutting away from the FIA and creating a new sanctioning body.

First off can we all agree that Max should have placed the sport ahead of his own self interests, done the honorable thing and step down immediately? Can you agree on that?

OK, so now we have established that Max is a dishonorable S.O.B., so what? Are you sure that there is no choice but a revolt? The teams and Bernie could issue a statement denouncing Max, calling for his voluntary resignation, issue a directive that Max is persona non grata and to be publicly shunned at all events. They could make it clear that his type is not welcome in F1. All this could be done, effectively neutering Max, while the FIA cogs work themselves out at their own pace. As a matter of fact Bernie and all but Ferrari, STR, and Williams put their signatures to a document calling for his resignation in Barcelona. Dietrich Mateschitz signed for Red Bull (or approved Horner to) but STR didn't so we can deduce that Berger declined to sign it (remember STR has Ferrari engines). To their discredit, it is no surprise that Ferrari declined to take a stand. Renault, in typical French fashion abstained. And Williams wanted guarantees that such a statement wouldn't be used to shove an "unpalatable successor" (code for Jean Todt) down the teams' throats.

I can tell you that Bernie would only do this if the emanations from corporate sponsors were strongly against Max and they want swift action. Apparently June 3rd is too long for them. Think about it. We are talking about Bernie signing Max's death warrant. Money, lots of money, and only lots of very serious money, could move Bernie to such action. CVC and the corporate interests have leaned on Bernie to do something. Max at Monaco will, in my estimation, be intolerable to the power brokers. I look for some action before then.

Perhaps, in the words of Don Corleone, Max might have "an unfortunate accident" taking a long walk on a short pier. [-X [-X OK, that's a poor joke but I love Brando and the word has come down from the heights that this mess must be cleaned up fast.

[WhiteBlue]

your posting seem to be more motivated by negative feelings than by logic, gcdugas. If Mosley had died from a stroke it would still have taken 2 months to replace him.

why do you think a guy in his position would roll over for his enemies if he can use the time in between to frustrate their efforts. he hasn't done anything illegal while his enemies surely used illegal means. if he stays in office his replacement will come at the same time as if he stepped back immediately. he will not survive the revelations of his sexual practises unless I'm very much mistaken.

the WMSC vote is pretty indicative of that scenario. the WMSC serves at the pleasure of Max Mosley who rightfully had a massive influence on the composition of this counsil. if that gremium was hung on the issue the general assembly which is not as select as the WMSC will surely vote him out.

regarding the suitability of candidates we have heard from various corners that a Ferrari ex CEO wouldn't be a wise choice. I think this really will become obvious when the candidates of the clubs are named. Todt cannot even be presen ted for election until he gets the nomination of a club. hopefully there will be other candiudates that are better suited. if not it may become an issue of Todt versus Mosley. again I believe that this is very unlikely.

There has been enough wishfull thinking, emotional rants and misinterpretation of the FIA statues as it stands. such antics will not help a good solution to the issue. I believe that those who want the best solution for the FIA and F1 should focus their energy on finding and promoting a good candidate and support his campaign.

[guy_smiley]

why do you think a guy in his position would roll over for his enemies

Because it's the (right,proper,etc) thing to do. He doesn't have to be the president of the FIA to fight his 'enemies'--he can do that as a regular person and he can continue doing for the rest of his life for all I care. Like I said, his image is tarnished forever. And if he wins his cases, it won't change the fact that the whole world knows he had an orgy with 5 hookers with an alleged nazi death camp theme.

I believe that those who want the best solution for the FIA and F1 should focus their energy on finding and promoting a good candidate and support his campaign.

I couldn't agree more! Let's get a suitable candidate in there as quickly as possible. Whether or not it could have happened immediately, or if it takes 2 months, I'll let you two continue your debate

[gcdugas]

why do you think a guy in his position would roll over for his enemies

Because it's the (right, proper, etc) thing to do. Agree, staying only hurts F1 - gcdugas He doesn't have to be the president of the FIA to fight his 'enemies'--he can do that as a regular person and he can continue doing for the rest of his life for all I care. Like I said, his image is tarnished forever. And if he wins his cases, it won't change the fact that the whole world knows he had an orgy with 5 hookers with an alleged nazi death camp theme.

I believe that those who want the best solution for the FIA and F1 should focus their energy on finding and promoting a good candidate and support his campaign.

I couldn't agree more! Let's get a suitable candidate in there as quickly as possible. Agree - gcudugs Whether or not it could have happened immediately, or if it takes 2 months, For benefit of F1, a vacant office is far preferrable to having an offensive scandal ridden person retain the reins of power so visibly. - gcdugas first I'll let you two continue your debate No, I agree with 99% of WhiteBlue's remarks. I agree strongly that procedure cannot be dispensed with for sake of expediency. That is why my propositions, "fax vote" and "incapacity", all fell within due course of procedure. Failing that outcome, my proposal of a public statement by Bernie and the teams shunning Max until the date of his removal, also honored "procedure". All of these are devoid of emotion. They are all logical, rational positions that stand or fall on their own. I still think that Max should put F1 before his self interest. WhiteBlue hasn't answered my question about retaining Max if he were an imprisoned child molester, nor has he addressed the issue of an incapacitated office holder. - gcdugas

F1 isn't alone in its timidity for public scandal. Look at Ronaldo (who also "committed no crime at all") and how fast sponsors fled. Nike is reconsidering a $100M deal. $100M, gee where have I read that number before?

FWIW, the thing I most admired about Michael Schumacher was the pleasure he took in his family. Yes, I know his wife was Frentzen's ex-girl but that is as close as scandal ever got to him, except if you count having a few drinks in Japan and wearing a Toyota shirt. Michael seems to be one of the most well adjusted athletes and a normal person.

[WhiteBlue]

... WhiteBlue hasn't answered my question about retaining Max if he were an imprisoned child molester, nor has he addressed the issue of an incapacitated office holder. - gcdugas....

I find this kind of speculation not helpfull to the case and that is why I prefer not to enter such arguments. I do not discriminate on people for legal sexual practise, religion or for race. I am aware that the public in majority does not share such an attitude and I acknoledge the effects that it has on the elegibility of politicians or the market value of sport stars. I would also think that criminal and violent behavior isn't statistically linked with deviant sexual practise. some of the most revolting sexual crimes were committed by heterosexual male perpetrators.

[gcdugas]

... WhiteBlue hasn't answered my question about retaining Max if he were an imprisoned child molester, nor has he addressed the issue of an incapacitated office holder. - gcdugas....

I find this kind of speculation not helpfull to the case and that is why I prefer not to enter such arguments. I do not discriminate on people for legal sexual practise, religion or for race. I am aware that the public in majority does not share such an attitude and I acknoledge the effects that it has on the elegibility of politicians or the market value of sport stars. I would also think that criminal and violent behavior isn't statistically linked with deviant sexual practise. some of the most revolting sexual crimes were committed by heterosexual male perpetrators.

That is a sad and weaselly way to deflect a substantive question of principle. OK, ignore sex, (I also posited the case of being a raving lunatic) suppose Max was murdered someone in plain sight and on film so there is no doubt as to his involvement. And like Mark David Chapman, John Lennon's killer, he was whisked off to jail immediately. Would you then still maintain that Max should hold office for two months before he could be formally deposed? My point in stressing this is that we have to maintain due process (procedure) without sacrificing the ability to remove an office holder.

It really is not a matter of "degree", as in how odious does the offense have to be before you will acquiesce that forcible removal is necessary. It is a matter of "kind". At what point is the office holder considered "incapacitated", and an impediment to the execution of his duties. And none of this even approaches the matter of ongoing disrepute and damage to the sport.

It is a binary question. Either you must answer:

Yes, I see that under the principles of "incapacitation", Max must be replaced and we need not wait for a successor. Under the principles of "incapacitation", there can be either a vacant office or a "President pro tem". Max's calculated absence from Barcelona where the FIA initiative "EveryRace" was introduced is ample evidence that Max no longer retains the stature to execute the duties of his office effectively. And while he was in Jordan, he was shunned by the King, so one could also conclude that Max has also lost the ability to execute the diplomatic and ambassadorial responsibilities of his office as well. But for the sake of the sport, swift removal is a must. There is no need for any more procedure than a simple vote of no confidence which can be done by fax or electronically.

Or you could say.....

No, I don't think there is a case for "incapacitation". S&M, prostitution, and Nazi overtones are not that offensive to me. He can delegate certain public PR duties to lieutenants. Sponsors, public image, the good of the sport, reputation and other matters are of no concern to the FIA, only to CVC and Bernie. They will have to learn to live with it.

Either choose one or the other or show me where I have overlooked a "third option".

[checkered]

Either choose one or the other or show me where I have overlooked a "third option".

I think you're perhaps

too fixated on why and how Mosley must go. I know this might sound like a curious statement, or even taking the focus out of something that absolutely must be done as a matter of priority.

I believe, though, that the current president can only be winning if this thing becomes only about himself. Trying to misrepresent his accomplishments will also benefit him. All this is a continuing distraction from the FIA's nonprofit mandate of representing 222 motoring organisations and 100 million persons in their motorist capacity at the UN and other international bodies. It is against this backround that it becomes clear that we need a president/governing body who can avoid petty politicised turf battles, who can avoid devoting most of the time to micromanaging one brand of motorsport (however important to the whole) and - above all - who can avoid making personal enemies left and right in his nonprofit capacity. And it also goes into how other FIA members should behave in this, and other, matters.

Thus, while you may contend that Mr. Mosley may benefit from any extension until a decision about himself is made, it does not diminish the value of that same resource in time for those who have chosen to look beyond him. And I suggest all who can make use of it in an active fashion to do so, taking the initiative beyond personalities, the general pettiness and cynical power plays - as much as they possibly can. Obviously there's much emotion with statements like "it is only fitting that he is met with such an end" but this certainly is not as dramatic as marching someone to the gallows nor should it be elevated (or diminished, rather) to such a level.

It's not so much Mr. Mosley's future (or past) that is being weighed but the FIA's, motorsports' and motorists' - and to those we owe much more than we can ever owe to any one president. Therefore it is not inconsequential how this process is taken to its completion, especially as it was initiated by two acts way beyond FIA's purpose or mandate - an unfortunate predicament as a starting point by any measure. I have no doubt this will be challenging on many levels, but I do believe that refocussing the whole situation and taking the wider perspective into account necessitates a solution, the part which concerns the position of Mr. Mosley also satisfying your personal wishes. At least technically.

We'll be somewhat wiser in about a month's time. Understand that I'm not advocating complacency or naïvete on the face of these problems or dealing with those, but merely maintaining that it is no law of nature that the lowest common denominator prevails. This, roughly put, is my "third option".

[WhiteBlue]

well said, checkered. =D>

is it the business of one member of this board to pressure other members into statements and make detrimental personal remarks about others? I think not!

I have given my views to this affair in several posts and I will probably comment as more information becomes available about the background of the NOTW publication and the forthcomming election of the FIA president.

I feel very uncomfortable with making moral judgement over Mr. Mosley at this time based on information that appears to be biased, potentially fabricated (the Nazi connotation) and illegally obtained. I must say the Nazi thing if confirmed would disqualify him totally in my view. But this particular issue is far from clear cut and there are plenty enough zelots who are doing an admirable job at voicing moral outrage. My voice isn't needed in this concert. I do see that he isn't capable under the circumstances to exercise his mandate as he should and agree to the point of the ADAC and the AAA. I hope the club representing me makes a good decision in the election and we get a next president who can manage the FIA as effectively as Mosley but with less confrontation.

To propose a solution to the crisis by anything but applying the statues of the FIA is unrealistic. A fax vote is unconstitutional and wouldn't resolve anything. It would be just a demonstration of displeasure without any impact on the factual situation. The fact is that Mr. Mosley sits in his office at Place de la Concorde in Paris until a general assembley votes him out. No words written on this board and in the press can change that.

in the meantime there is a new development on Monday reported by autosport

FIA appoints barrister over 'Nazi' claims

By Jonathan Noble Monday, May 5th 2008, 11:17 GMT


The FIA has appointed leading barrister Anthony Scrivener QC to undertake a detailed analysis of the sexual allegations surrounding Max Mosley to judge whether suggestions of a Nazi-element to his activities are true.

The News of the World newspaper reported that Mosley was involved in a 'Nazi-style' orgy with prostitutes, sparking the controversy that has cast doubts on his future as FIA president.

Mosley has strongly denied that there was any Nazi element to his sexual conduct, however, and the FIA will now complete a full investigation to judge the matter for itself prior to the General Assembly meeting on June 3 that will decide the president's future.

In a statement issued by the FIA on Monday, the governing body said: "Senior officers of the FIA have appointed Anthony Scrivener QC as an independent expert to undertake a full analysis of the available evidence relating to allegations in the News of the World that Mr. Mosley was involved in 'Nazi style' activities. Mr Mosley has welcomed this appointment.

"Mr Scrivener QC will provide an opinion on whether the available evidence supports the use by the News of the World of this description. Should the FIA Extraordinary General Assembly so decide, this opinion will be available to the member clubs of the FIA on 3 June."

Scrivener is a leading member of the bar of England and Wales, as has served as a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal since 2006.

the NOTW has claimed that they send material to the FIA to support their Nazi claim. I wonder what a bar member will make of this. Would Mr. Scrivener be professionally obliged to come to an objective opinion in the matter or can he be considered to be partisan to this issue?

[DaveKillens]

My Scrivener may be a QC, but I never trust anyone who is a member of an organization who says they are conducting an impartial "Internal" investigation. Mr Scrivner gets his cheques from the FIA, and currently, Max still controls that body. And the only conclusion he can reach is whether this NoTW information is presentable to the FIA. If he says it's OK, then nothing has changed. But if he says it's inadmissable, then Max is in the position of defending himself against inadmissable evidence. It's a win-win situation for Max.
Max couldn't get the British courts to ban the video. Then he went to the French and failed in a similar attempt. Now, Max is trying to raise some method where the NoTW video cannot be used against Max in the big FIA hearing.

[gcdugas]

Obviously there's much emotion with statements like "it is only fitting that he is met with such an end"

Emotion? Really? Can one not comment on the divine irony of Max having his own abuses come home to revisit him. Taken in context with his hypocritical complaining about "illicitly obtained" evidence, when Max himself casually dismissed such concerns in legal proceedings he chaired, and in context with the numerous abuses of office, it seems rather "fitting". Now one can take pleasure in that forgetting that he too is flesh and blood or one can look at it and shudder lest his private transgressions be visited with the same Providence. But I would not call it emotional. - gcdugas

well said, checkered. =D>

is it the business of one member of this board to pressure other members into statements and make detrimental personal remarks about others? I think not!

I am not "pressuring you" to make "personal remarks". I am asking you to be consistent with your stated principles. You have stated in essence that the FIA should wait a full two months to address Max's transgression/competence/fitness to continue. All I asked was.... would you hold this principle if the office holder were found to be guilty of. murder, child molestation, a raving lunatic in Nazi regalia issuing edicts. The question goes towards principle. There is nothing personal or detrimental. I just want to know if you are consistent in the application of your stated principle. - gcdugas

I have given my views to this affair in several posts and I will probably comment as more information becomes available about the background of the NOTW publication and the forthcomming election of the FIA president.

I feel very uncomfortable with making moral judgement over Mr. Mosley at this time based on information that appears to be biased, potentially fabricated (the Nazi connotation) and illegally obtained. No "moral judgements" are being requested of you. If you re-read all my posts, I never deal with the morality issue. I am solely dealing with "fitness to continue/needed stature/image of the sport" matters. I even mentioned Ronaldo's woes to illustrate the big business realities of sports. And the only actions of Max's that I have ever condemned has been his despotic governance, and his lack of magnanimity to step down for the good of the sport. Let him have a thousand S&M hookers for all I care. Just know that such things do not allow him to retain the stature needed to govern a multicultural international organization. It is not my moral judgment, it is just a reality reflected by the statements of BMW/Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, AAA, ADAC, Jackie "half wit" Stewart, the King of Jordan, the King of Bahrain, King Juan Carlos of Spain, and even Bernie Ecclestone etc. etc. You simply must be able to retain the confidence and blessing of such if you are ever to "fulfill the mandate" of your office. - I never made a moral judgment of Max's sexual peccadilloes. - gcdugas I must say the Nazi thing if confirmed would disqualify him totally in my view. But this particular issue is far from clear cut and there are plenty enough zelots who are doing an admirable job at voicing moral outrage. My voice isn't needed in this concert. I do see that he isn't capable under the circumstances to exercise his mandate as he should and agree to the point of the ADAC and the AAA. I hope the club representing me makes a good decision in the election and we get a next president who can manage the FIA as effectively as Mosley but with less confrontation.

To propose a solution to the crisis by anything but applying the statues of the FIA is unrealistic. A fax vote is unconstitutional and wouldn't resolve anything. It would be just a demonstration of displeasure without any impact on the factual situation. The fact is that Mr. Mosley sits in his office at Place de la Concorde in Paris until a general assembley votes him out. No words written on this board and in the press can change that.

in the meantime there is a new development on Monday reported by autosport

FIA appoints barrister over 'Nazi' claims

By Jonathan Noble Monday, May 5th 2008, 11:17 GMT


The FIA has appointed leading barrister Anthony Scrivener QC to undertake a detailed analysis of the sexual allegations surrounding Max Mosley to judge whether suggestions of a Nazi-element to his activities are true.

The News of the World newspaper reported that Mosley was involved in a 'Nazi-style' orgy with prostitutes, sparking the controversy that has cast doubts on his future as FIA president.

Mosley has strongly denied that there was any Nazi element to his sexual conduct, however, and the FIA will now complete a full investigation to judge the matter for itself prior to the General Assembly meeting on June 3 that will decide the president's future.

In a statement issued by the FIA on Monday, the governing body said: "Senior officers of the FIA have appointed Anthony Scrivener QC as an independent expert to undertake a full analysis of the available evidence relating to allegations in the News of the World that Mr. Mosley was involved in 'Nazi style' activities. Mr Mosley has welcomed this appointment.

"Mr Scrivener QC will provide an opinion on whether the available evidence supports the use by the News of the World of this description. Should the FIA Extraordinary General Assembly so decide, this opinion will be available to the member clubs of the FIA on 3 June."

Scrivener is a leading member of the bar of England and Wales, as has served as a judge on the FIA International Court of Appeal since 2006.

the NOTW has claimed that they send material to the FIA to support their Nazi claim. I wonder what a bar member will make of this. Would Mr. Scrivener be professionally obliged to come to an objective opinion in the matter or can he be considered to be partisan to this issue?

Let's give Scrivener the benefit of the doubt right now. Suppose he was commissioned by other FIA members to inquire about the validity of certain accusations, in particular, the Nazi aspect. For him to investigate such a claim would require a review of the whole five hour film, and some first hand interviews with the "vice girls" to determine if these Nazi elements were present and if they were requested. Barring such, he would be open to claims of a cover-up, or at the least a complete failure to exercise the due diligence his commission requires. Let's wait and see.

But either way, Nazi or no Nazi, I contend that Max has irreparably diminished his stature to the point that he cannot continue. Yes it should be private but the genie is out of the bottle now and that will never change.

It is clear that Bernie and the CVC have been hearing enough discontent that they have, reluctantly or not, made motions for Max to go. Continued scandal in the papers, skitterish sponsors, and Max's public appearance in Monaco are all things that cannot be endured. At the very least Max will have to come up with a plausible smokescreen as to why he won't attend the GP. I cannot see that being allowed to happen by the aforementioned interests. - gcdugas

[WhiteBlue]

... is it the business of one member of this board to pressure other members into statements and make detrimental personal remarks about others? I think not! ...

I am not "pressuring you" to make "personal remarks". I am asking you to be consistent with your stated principles. You have stated in essence that the FIA should wait a full two months to address Max's transgression/competence/fitness to continue. ...

contrary to your view I havn't expressed my opinion of what should happen. I have simply posted what the statues of the FIA require in terms of mandatory procedure. and I have shown that these procedures are inconsistent with your views of what should happen.

... WhiteBlue hasn't answered my question about retaining Max if he were an imprisoned child molester, nor has he addressed the issue of an incapacitated office holder. - gcdugas....

.... That is a sad and weaselly way to deflect a substantive question of principle. ....

well, I would say that being accused of "weaselly ways" is a pretty detrimental personal remark! I do not appreciate such labels. I rather like a debate which is focused on issues and not so much on the person who makes certain points or posts an opinion. this forum should be informative, and a platform for knowledge and opinions which can be shared or ignored as the posters and readers see fit. personal remarks aren't helpfull towards that objective in my view.