Has Max been a verryyy naughty boy?

[RH1300S]

So is it war? Max vs Bernie..

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67590

and

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx ... 9&PO=42699

Let battle commence! My money's on Bernie, even though he's got a reach, height and weight disadvantage..

Is it war? This is worth speculation...........

Or is it a Max/Bernie double act yet again? It's hard to read Bernie's words - sometimes he says exactly what he's thinking, sometimes what he wants people to think.

[Chaparral]

WhiteBlue - why have you gone to these lengths to show these women - Im confused is this a soft porn site - I dont think so.
Im not sure how this is going to play out but it looks like a fight to the death with Mosley & BCE - both have a lot to lose here - BCE Im sure doesnt want control of F1 outside of what he has - he can and has set the agenda for rules/guidelines over the last decade via the FIA and anyone who thinks different needs to take a reality check - he popped $350 mil US in Mosleys pocket for the rights back then and has controlled the agenda (via Mosely) ever since - this seems a bit personal which is when it all gets silly - BCE and Mosley should always remember its just business

[WhiteBlue]

EDIT: I cannot edit my last message any more so I give an abstract of what was posted and removed. there were several web site URLs, images and quotes from the participants of Mosleys SM party.

Misstress Abi also called Mistress Switch with face in Luftwaffe jacket from links to her former web site

Mistress Zena Stones, the German Mistress confirming that she prefers to speak German on her web site

Leia-Ann Woods, the 1. prisoner in portrait with her own blog and web site

Jadie Reece, the 2. prisoner in portrait from the northern spanking web site

actually most participants are still portrayed at northern spanking as I'm writing this.

all of this material was published on the internet. it was removed due to complains of lawyers involved in the Mosley law suits. I don't know why it was deemed inappropriate as I have only linked material published elsewhere.

just for the record end of edit by WhiteBlue


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





It is quite clear in what areas our friend Bernie doesn't like the policies of the FIA recently executed by Max Mosley. He certainly isn't enjoying the kind of control that he wants - total control.

• The FIA makes no requirement any more of an entrant being party to a concord agreement with FOM.
• FIA liases closely with manufacturers who feed their agenda that way and do not consult Ecclestone => much money enters F1 without touching Bernie's pockets
• He cannot induce teams to veto things that he doesn't like anymore by financial favours
• He cannot change control of FOM without placet by the FIA
• He cannot terminate venues without placet of the FIA. The British GP being an interesting application to come up in 2010

Those are some good reasons to get rid of Max Mosley and install another stooge that is more willing to give him total control. As I have shown above a nice scandal and quick resignation leading to change of power in the FIA without preparation and opposition would have been ideal. hence no wait until Mosley's term is over and keeping concord in the air.

I didn't see it initially but it is obvious now. Having a look at Mosleys play pals in his SM sessions is quite revealing. The ladies are not prostitutes as the public is made to believe but mainly SM models that earn their money by video productions. they typically say on their web sites that they do not provide sex services unlike escorts or call girls do. Funny enough they all work for one video production and decided to sponsor a charity together.

The German national lady confirms Mosley's claims that the German language was used to communicate with her. That is her favourite language for SM plays she says. and Mosley no doubt loved to show up his skills. he alsways does this when he is on German television interviews. he seems to be eager to practise.

the web sites also confirm that they do not do Nazi stuff (which some SM people seem to do and I hate it). they were using contemporary German Luftwaffe uniforms, which I have no objections to.

Personally I couldn't care less what they did with Max Mosley. He can beat them every day or get beaten. as far as I am concerned it is perfectly legal and his private affair.

Where the details become interesting is the disputed question whether the stitch up was by the Milton Keynes Lady on her own idea or induced by Bernie, Murdoch or the CVC. I am pretty much convinced by publicly accessible data that Mosley is telling the truth at least about the SM sessions and their publication. The power and money logic supports this.

This leads me to the conclusion that not Mosley but Ecclestone is the likely villain in this drama. If that gets confirmed by a court of law I would like to see him dropped by CVC. CVC funds are majority sourced from American pension funds. If the suspected role of Ecclestone is confirmed his position will be untenable.

[Ciro Pabón]

I fail to see a reason to post that pictures. Yuck.

[WhiteBlue]

I fail to see a reason to post that pictures. Yuck.

I have taken the pictures with some nudity out. People can make up their own mind if they want to look at the links.

For Ciro



I hope you like Danica better


For me Berger sums up the Mosley issue quite right:

Berger: Judge Mosley on his work

By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, May 22nd 2008, 14:48 GMT


Scuderia Toro Rosso's co-owner Gerhard Berger says Max Mosley should only be judged by his work as FIA president rather by what he does in private.

The FIA head made a low-key return to the Formula One paddock at Monaco, refusing to answer questions before going back to his private office before the start of today's practice.

It was Mosley's first visit to the F1 paddock since revelations were printed about his private life in the News of the World newspaper.

Mosley will face a confidence vote at an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Council, in Paris on June 3.

Berger said on Thursday that Mosley should not be judged by his private life, and the Austrian was critical of some members of the Formula One fraternity.

"I never commented because I think it is entirely a private thing," Berger told a news conference in Monaco. "I think there is nothing to comment. It is something that happens with grown up people, nothing against the law and I am very surprised how many angels are around here, especially in F1, who are very clear and very nice.

"To connect this to the job of Mosley as FIA president is not right. I have been a long time in F1 now, I have seen many things and I have been in an era of Mosley racing and the position now... there are very few people who have made so much safety impact in motorsport as Max.

"If you remember, especially what happened in 1994 with Ayrton at Imola, he was a strong guy to change a lot of things, race tracks and crash tests. And to see an accident like last year in Canada with Kubica, it saved his life.

"He has done a lot in road cars too, all these improvements in crash tests. I think it is not fair to see it through the glasses as some people try to see it.

"I think his future in the FIA should be decided by the clubs, not by the newspapers or us. The sport needs a strong guy and he definitely is."
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said the focus during the weekend should be on racing, not on Mosley's visit.

"We are here to go racing with the focus on the sport," he said. "It is very much an internal issue for Max and the FIA. There is nothing further for me to add other than that what Gerhard says: he has done many, many good things."

one should look behind the smoke screen of the "stop Mosley" media campaign

[Chaparral]

This is from Joe Saward - Im not sure but reading between the lines its interesting - and the reference to a 'respected FIA President' - is BCE twisting the knife?

Bernie Ecclestone has written to the presidents of the FIA national clubs, replying to Max Mosley's recent letter. Ecclestone said that Mosley's statements "could lead to misunderstandings and inaccurate conclusions being drawn".

Ecclestone said that Formula One supports the FIA and recognises that it is the sole governing body for international motorsport.

"We recognise the obligation conferred upon the FIA by you, its membership, to safeguard its authority over all safety, sporting and technical matters relating to the championship, as well as its traditional values."

The letter adds that "we support and concur with the requirement of the European Commission that regulatory functions relating to international motor sport be separate from the associated commercial interests and that the FIA's role in Formula 1 should be that of the sporting regulator, uninvolved in its commercial exploitation. We believe it is to the benefit of Formula 1 that the FIA should have a transparent and robust governance structure and that it should discharge its regulatory responsibilities in a fair, impartial and non-discriminatory manner, without external influence or interference, led by a credible and respected President (who should be chosen by the FIA's membership only). We intend to continue to manage exclusively the commercial exploitation of Formula 1 within the established frameworks of the existing FIA Formula 1 Commercial Agreement and, in due course, the 100 year agreements."

Ecclestone went on to give details about the 100 year deal which the FIA and SLEC Holdings Ltd entered into April 2001, saying that the agreements are "valid and binding on the parties and will in all material respects become operative in 2011. They do not need to be altered or renegotiated unless both parties wish to do so."

Ecclestone admitted that "there are some ambiguities in the drafting of these agreements, however, and we have sought discussions with the FIA President to clarify these points and to avoid unintended consequences. We have also raised with him a number of other issues which we considered would improve the agreements without damaging the FIA' s interests, but we accept that is a matter for the FIA to judge, it is not obliged to make those concessions to us and should it consider it is against its interests to do so, we would be content to the leave the agreements in their present form and when the time comes, to operate within their existing scope, without amendments."

Ecclestone denied that the Formula One group wants to control the F1 regulations.

"We believe that the Formula 1 regulations should be drawn up by the Formula 1Technical and Sporting Working Groups, subject to the approval of the FIA Formula 1 Commission and the FIA World Motor Sport Council. To the extent any changes to the Formula 1 regulations may have a material commercial impact on the commercial rights holder and its interests, such changes should be discussed and agreed with us. Imprudent changes to the Formula 1 regulations, if adopted, could have a dramatic adverse impact on the attractiveness of the sport, to promoters, to broadcasters, to sponsors and to the fans; they could add significantly to the cost of participating in the championship at a competitive level; they could also undermine or depart from the championship's traditional values.

"We believe that a clear regulatory framework would minimise the risk of such problems. The FIA should be solely responsible for policing and enforcing the Formula 1 regulations fairly, transparently and without bias."

Ecclestone went on to say that the Formula One group wants to Concorde Agreement to be renewed, "not as a way for the commercial rights holder to exercise control over the sport, but because it will provide the financial and regulatory stability desired by the F1 teams and the motor manufacturers who sponsor and invest significantly in them. The commercial and financial arrangements, including the distribution of the annual prize fund, have been agreed between the commercial rights holder and the Formula 1 teams, with the full knowledge of the FIA."

Ecclestone said that the Formula One group is "willing to sign immediately a new Concorde Agreement substantially based upon and containing the same regulatory provisions as the previous Concorde Agreement, amended only to reflect the commercial and financial arrangements agreed with the teams."

He went on to say that Mosley's claim that F1 is in a financial crisis is not correct.

"Formula 1 is in robust health," he said. "It enjoys the support of most of the world's leading automotive manufacturers and is sponsored by many of the world's other most prestigious brands. Revenues continue to grow, television ratings are high and demand from countries to promote a new Grand Prix continues to exceed the number of places on the calendar."

He added, however, that the cost of operating a successful F1 team has risen to "an unsustainable level and this is being addressed.The Formula 1 teams have agreed upon some cost-cutting measures, making it more viable to participate at a competitive level and with a robust and stable regulatory framework, further efficiencies should be possible".

He said that the Formula One group will continue to support such initiatives.

He added that the FIA derives "in excess of $25m each year from Formula 1 (not including fines, which are often substantial sums) which subsidises other aspects of the sport. The FIA Foundation was founded with the substantial sum paid to the FIA for the 100 year agreement.

"We have no reason to undermine the FIA or its President, on the contrary we believe a strong FIA led by a respected president is good for all key constituents of Formula 1: the fans, the teams, the sponsors and suppliers,the promoters, the media companies and us.

"You may be assured that whatever decision you should make on June 3, we look forward to continuing our long-standingand constructive relationship with the FIA and its President in pursuit of a stable and successful Formula 1."

[WhiteBlue]

Joe just repeats the letter. It would have been better to publish it in the original form.

It is amazing that there is no opinion added by GP.com. considering the power FOM holds over F1 journalists it is understandable though.

At least Saward has declared that he wants to know who was behind the operation against Mosley and that he does not believe that the woman known as Mistress Abi did it for the little money that was payed by NoTW.

Saward shares the desire to know who set up Mosley with Dr. Mario Theissen who said right from the begin that such an operation wasn't acceptable.

To me it appears more important to identify those responsible for this "honeytrap" than to get rid of Mosley immediately. Contrary to the current press campaign Mosley isn't doing F1 much harm and will soon be gone from the FIA anyway.

It could be a lot more costly and damaging to the FIA and F1 if the "trappers" escape their identification and punishment.

[Chaparral]

Well its hardly Watergate WB is it I think we are definitely seeing the last days of Mosely and I actually wouldve put money on him surviving this with his onclave of supporters but BCE has always had the better hand of cards hasnt he Pity it will not make one damm difference to the actual racing [-o<

[WhiteBlue]

If Bernie gets it his way it could have substantial impact on the racing in one or two years. I agree that Bernie is playing a clever game so far if he is the guy behind this.

There could be a bigger picture than F1 behind the whole thing. One should look at the story how CVC and some other private equity guys merged Saga and the AA. They made £2.0bn from that neat little operation.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/artic ... _page_id=2

When you read Mosleys and Sawards writing you realise that all the auto clubs are heavily embarking on commercial operations and their membership data are gold worth to commercial touring, travel and insurance operators.

having someone control the FIA in their interest would be a nice asset if you intend to make such money making schemes in other countries as well.

I see that F1technical has published Bernie's letter ! well done!

[checkered]

Again, just archiving

stuff to provide a historical timeline, if we ever want to revisit a particular event. This time, it's an interesting Pitpass.com/Sunday Express exposé about the events of 1994. A tale of a young star attracting revenue into F1 coffers by delivering a new fanbase, his team being called to account in front of the WMSC for offences which carry the maximum penalty of exclusion from the championship and the Mosley/Ecclestone team intervening just before the crucial hearing. It should be enough to ring a bell or two in relation to what 2007 had to offer and what became the unlikely saving graces of a hapless effort at coupling the two drivers whose visibility is as indispensable as it comes. As Pitpass notes, this (and not whipping up trouble) goes to the heart of the professionality of those in F1 with whom the buck (or whatever currency there is to be pocketed) stops. Ultimately, we do indeed need to ask "What really happens at the FIA"?

[WhiteBlue]

Checkered, thats a very old story which has been published several times. It was published by the son of the man. The involment of Bernie wasn't told that way before but it makes sense and it is clear how Sylt got that info. Strait from Bernie himself. Sylt has been working with Bernie for many years. He is a pretty reliable source for financial information. The FIA came down on Schumacher in another way and I'm sure it was motivated by the Benetton fuel rig mess. Briatore got himself off that hook quite elegantly and has been in Bernies good book ever since. So in actual fact the driver in this case got a penalty that should have hit the team for a transgression which wasn't his fault. The same fudge up was made last year only the other way around. when a team is guilty the drivers have to be fined. that time they were not and again out of commercial considerations. It is known again that Bernie was behind it. So we know he will do everything to manipulate sporting results to get his ways. He should not get control by installing another stooge after Mosley. Everybody knows that Mosley was Ecclestones man and now that he tries to replace him with someone else people focus on beating up the wrong guy. they should try to find an honest person who will not be influenced by Ecclestone and get the evidence of all crap that Bernie has pulled all those years. I hope Mistress Abi and her hubbie will be put in a witness stand. some money in my pocket says that would finish Ecclestones job at FOM.

[Chaparral]

My money and sources go to Mosley surviving this (as Ive said all along) - and he will until his 2009 departure - how history will document his tenure as the head of the FIA is years away - who replaces him - well Id put money on Toad

[WhiteBlue]

another piece by Joe Saward

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20401.html

Mr. Saward is taking the conventional point of view here. nevertheless I regard this point as somewhat hypocritical. The interested public has received confirmation that the publication of Mosleys eccentric sex life was part of a power play as had been suspected right from the beginnings.

That poses the interesting question who would have profited from an immediate retirement of Mosley. the answer is quite simply those who caused the scandal by illegal and despicable action in the first place.

Saward tries to construct a partial fault of Mosley but this is not logical and is hypocritical. sado masochistic sexuality isn't different to homosexuality, group sex, oral sex or any other form of legal sexual behavior in the UK. it is entirely the right of a free citizen to practise such activities without discrimination as long as they are conducted in a private domain and not publicly. of course we know that wide parts of the public lack the respect for a liberal democratic view of human rights and that is why dirt diggers like NoTW can make money with the filth they publish.

The other important aspect in the scandal Mr. Ecclestone has engineered is the reliability of the two men who are pitched against each other in the case. Ecclestone apparently has no respect for human rights, democratic rules and honesty in business. The story how he got Mosley in charge in the first place and how he then set about to take the championship earnings away from the owner shows his total lack of honesty. Mosley's statements on the other hand since the scandal broke loose can be checked against the facts. not a single time has he tried to mislead someone about the facts of the case.

I have gone to the effort of investigating Mosley's SM role play partners after their public nom de guerres were known. It is quite obvious that their main feature isn't prostitution as the NoTW makes believe. They all seem to share an obsession to SM role play and modelling that is apparently substantially driven by their own fantasies instead of prostituting themselves for money. two of them who had own web sites specifically excluded sexual acts from their list of services offered. again it appears that Mosley's opposition is not telling the truth and he is much closer in his statements to what has really happened. the women who participated in the role play were obviously a close group that had a personal relationship or even friendship. they co sponsored cancer research UK. http://www.raceforlifesponsorme.org/bumsontherun

what brings a person like Mistress Abi to the betrayal of her friends and her long term clinet. and what motivates her to bring her husband into serious trouble and threaten her own lifestyle? in my view only a vast amount of money beyond the typical dirt pay of NoTW would do that. again logic supports the Mosley side of the story.

next one should ask who of the players if any at all brings F1 into disrepute. a well consealed hobby of deviant sexual behavior will not do this. with the same right one could construe a story about Mika Hakkinen whose house burned down last week. His wife wasn't present but two females of which one was descibed as his girl friend. nobody made abig deal about the fact that Mikka is still married and apparently shared his house at that time with two women. and rightly so. whatever he did was his privat affair. he certainly did not bring F1 into disrepute. the same is true for Mosley.

if Ecclestone planted the scandal then he is the person who brings F1 into disrepute by his illegal business practices. if it is confirmed no sponsor or stake holder in F1 can sleep comfortably with the thought that he is involved with a busines whose central figure betrays his associates and partners and sponsors criminal behavior for profit.

under those same assumptions it makes a lot of sense for Mosley to remain in office until the NoTW business and the suspected role of Ecclestone has been dealt with by a court of law. certainly the risk of doing damage to the sport by letting it fall into the hands of an alledgedly criminal CEO is bigger than the risk of running it with a president who isn't accepted at public functions but can be temporarily replaced by stand in deputies.

ultimately there is no way around replacing Mosley with an elected president of impeccable renomee and proven capability. from a tactical point of view the FIA is ill advised to hasten this process unduely and potentially play into the hands of those who want to expropriate them even further.

[mcdenife]

Whiteblue wrote:

The interested public has received confirmation that the publication of Mosleys eccentric sex life was part of a power play as had been suspected right from the beginnings.

If by confirmation you are refering to Max's letter then sure Bernies letter clarifying issues is confirmation of the opposite. so question, why is Max's a fact (as implied by you)but not Bernies?

whiteblue wrote:

That poses the interesting question who would have profited from an immediate retirement of Mosley. the answer is quite simply those who caused the scandal by illegal and despicable action in the first place.

And who might this be or do you mean the NOTW? If so perhaps you can tell us what this profit is. Regardless, you imply you know for a fact which other parties are involved. Perhaps you know
something the rest of us don't.

I think alot of people have their thoughts on Bernie but by an large what we have are merely suspicions, speculations and deductions based on stories etc. Which is why I am amazed when you state, as if a fact the following:

The other important aspect in the scandal Mr. Ecclestone has engineered is the reliability of the two men who are pitched against each other in the case. Ecclestone has no respect for human rights, democratic rules and honesty in business.

Mosley's statements on the other hand since the scandal broke loose can be checked against the facts and not a single time has he tried to mislead someone about the facts of the case.

What statements can be checked as fact other than that the NOTW did not make up the story? According to you, it seems Max is the only one telling the truth or the one who has been honest in all this sordid story.

Saward makes a very valid and reasoned argument. You cannot nbreak an egg and Max has compounded things further by refusing to resign. This more than anything else shows the contempt he has for the organisation he represents.

[donskar]

I promised I would not take part in this thread. I'll waffle a bit and post something very apropos from grandprix.com:

The problem that Mosley faces is that all the arguments about privacy became irrelevant from the moment his sex life entered the public domain. It is not the mechanicism by which the revelations occurred that is important, but rather his reaction to them. Mosley did not try to deny his activities. It was, in any case, impossible to do that. What he did not do, however, was to resign and save the FIA the embarrassment of the scandal, and avoid the federation being dragged into the whole business. There is a clear argument, based on previous use of the rules, that this brought the sport into disrepute. Mosley may see nothing wrong with sado-masochistic orgies but a large number of other people on the planet do not think this is something they need or want to know about. The FIA elected Mosley with the unspoken hope that he would avoid such things, just as it hopes its primary players will not fall foul of financial scandals and other such embarrassments. As president there is a responsibility to do what is right and what is best for the FIA, even if the FIA Statutes do not cover these points specifically. The President is chosen to be the symbol of the organisation and the image that the FIA wishes to portray is of a strong yet discreet organisation that sorts out important matters with governments, car manufacturers and so on. Mosley failed to live up to those unstated qualities and, worse than that, had the poor judgement to continue to involve himself in these sordid visits even when he claims he knew he was under surveillance. [Emphasis added.]

This isn't a TV soap opera or some cheap spy novel. This is a real-life multinational, multi-billion dollar organization being run by a pariah.