Max totaly loses it

Mr Mosely has reached a new low. The FIA have released a statement that because of the injunction Paul Stodart received from the Victorian Supreme court they will consider not running any more motorsport events in Australia!

So does this mean the FIA consider themselves to be above the law?

Let's not forget who started this whole mess, and in this case I'm fully behind the FIA. Aren't you baffled that the judge would make such a decision without listening to both sides of the argument? I know I was. The precedent that could have been, or was, set was too dangerous. All they're saying (at least from Stoddart's words, and he will now say anything) that if the laws of the country may force us to give unfair advantage to a competitor, maybe this country is not suitable for the forms of racing governed by us. I kinda doubt a judge in any other country would have made such a decision so quickly and in such a way as it happened yesterday.

Stoddart has always asserted that the new rules were illegal inder the Concord agreement, so I can only guess that is the tack he took in court. A simple case of restriction of trade. Similar laws are in force in most countries of the western world. Max and Bernie want out of Europe with the tobacco restrictions so this could be a new front for them.

Stoddart's signature is under those rule changes. If he truly was going to do something about it, he should have done it months ago, not the day before the race. Usually I have a soft spot for Minardi, but in this case Stoddart has no sympathy from me, and he has lost a lot of respect for himself and, unfortunately, for his team.

Not true Alex, Stodart has been against the late changes from the beginning and brewing this showdown for months. The rules were brought in over and above the Concord Agreement from my (admitedly far from complete) understanding. The teams had no choice in accepting them or not. The first chance Stodard had to make a stand was this weekend. He corresponded with Max all off season with no satisfaction.

From what I understand, there was unanimous agreement among the teams over the aerodynamic regulations. All I see is someone trying to get exposure for his new airline, especially considering how quickly he was able to bring the cars up to the regulations when shown his place.

That is not the case Alex. Mosley gave the teams a deadline to come up with a series of new rules to slow the cars. No surprise they couldn't agree. So Max forced his package through on safety grounds. Stoddart takes the position that the changes are actually contrary to safety so therfore illegal. Been saying that for months and months. Max's actions are pretty much the basis of the solidarity of the 9 teams (minus Ferrari) that started at Brazil last year. Of course Mosley and Ferrari are using that to their advantage now.

If he truly believed in the rules being illegal, he should have challenged them there and then. Showing up at the race with an illegal car when everyone else has brought their cars up to the regulations and making a drama out of it is not the way to do it, unless it's for cheap publicity. Guess he got it, but I'm not buying any of his whigning anymore. He had the parts, he should have installed them and got on with it, if racing was indeed at the top of his agenda, which it obviously wasn't.

Quote from Mosley:
The new tyre, aerodynamic and engine rules have been widely criticised?
“The tyre and aerodynamic rules for 2005 and 2006 were agreed unanimously by the teams, the engines by a large (7 to 3) majority. The tyre companies, also, are pleased and will be bringing (we are told) 4 sets per car to a race compared to 19 sets per car last year. All rules can be criticised, but we must wait for a few races before we can be sure if we and the teams which supported us were right.”

And another one

“Paul has known about the new bodywork regulations since 6 September 2004 – in fact his team voted for them that day in common with all the other teams. We understand that he has the latest bodywork in Melbourne, even if he has not yet tested it fully. We also understand that at least three teams would object to him running outside the regulations (which it is also our job to enforce). If he decides not to run, we think it unlikely that the Melbourne organisers will seek compensation from him.”

What exactly did Stoddart vote for? He had no choice, or way of affecting the outcome. As I said above I do not know all the ins and outs, but Stoddart has been very consistent on this all off season. I think Max's twisting of the truth and snide remarks against Minardi is evidence of his desperation/annoyance.

Minardi did have 2005 bodywork ready but if the rules are illegal then they'd be the only cars that are legal using 2004 aero parts! For sure it was a publicity exercise/show of dissent. Unfortunately it didn't really work since all the media seemed to miss the point.

Why would Max be afraid of allowing a court to examine and rule on the intricacies of it all?

Apprently, Paul voted for the changes to the regulations, but like you, I'm not privy to all the information.

I'm sure Paul is free to pursue his cause in court and there is nothing Max can do to stop him. What are the chances of him doing that now that his escapades are turning against him? Personally, I don't have a problem with the court decision, but the way it was done is surely fishy. I'd think that both sides of the story should be given a chance to speak. Mind you, Max didn't waern the court, he warned Stoddart, even bullied him, yet your "above the law" argument is misplaced. It's the other party that thought they were and threw one of his regular sissy fits once he was told he was not. He had since Sept 6th to object the rgulations in whatever legal manners are available. Of course he'd have a better case if his signature wasn't under the agreement. Paul thought he could bully the FIA hours before his "home" GP, but apparently FIA are better at this bullying thing. Serves him right too, maybe now he will focus on matters of running the team.

When Max resorts to threats against those he has in his pocket (i.e. Ron Walker, organiser of the AGP) then he most certainly has lost it. He challenged the law of Australia rather foolishly forgetting Australian laws are based on British laws. Max hasn't been above manipulating court proceedings in the past, seems he doesn't like it when he isn't the one in control.

I've made it clear before that I don't think much of Paul Stoddart, but I do appreciate him showing the FIA up in this instance, just a shame his message has been corrupted by the media.

As for not objecting to the rule changes when first waved under his nose, that is a big difference to voting for them (because he most definitely did not)!! All the teams were left with no recourse, as I recall it was a fax vote and an abstention was deemed to be consent! Max cannot be believed. Legal action could only be taken once the rules are to be implemented. The FIA is an international body so exactly where should a legal case be mounted? Once in a country at an event then the local courts were the only place, at least in Stoddart's mind. He threatened and he carried through.

"Words" must have been had on Friday night from Bernie and the FIA heavies. The bully boys chalk up another score. :(

For few weeks he has been trying to threaten his way through this with all the "we don't want to go to court", "this will be the last resort" and "if Minardi's wheels don't turn on the track they will not be the only ones", all he got was his own tactics back at him, an no, he didn't carry through, he backed off with his tail behind his legs romising to let all truth be known (not the first time he has promised that either). His "you don't let me do this and I'll do this to you" was countered with "fine, and our response will be the following..." Trying to bully the FIA might work for Dennis and Williams, but Stodddart is no Dennis or Williams. All I know is I'm tired of him and his politics.

I also feel it wasn't so much about Minardi as about not letting cars complying to different regulations run on the track, because, as you've yourself said, if the Minardis were to be found the only cars legal, what then? Even with the consent of all the teams, the FIA wasn't ging to let that happen.

You don't believe Max, I don't trust Stoddart. I guess it's a matter of which person with a political agenda one chooses to believe.

For sure both have adgendas. But for me, when Max took it to the extreme of threatening future races in Australia, he went too far and "lost it" - the topic of this thread after all. If a minnow like Stoddart can reduce Max to making foolish threats like that, then it is time he was replaced.

Although I have to ask, do you believe Mosley?

Sometimes :)

Umm i've only been watching F1 since the last race of 03 season. So what is this Concord agreement. Also what was the deal i know the said manardi showed up with last years cars and had the stuff to goto this year but were going to?? I didn't catch it all on Speed just the first qualifying and the race.

Concorde is the agreement F1 teams have with the FIA governing money and rulemaking. Was originally borne out of the FISA/FOCA wars in the early eighties. Been rewritten several times since then.

Why was the Minardi ruckus about? Basically the FIA introduced a raft of new rules late last year contrary to the way the Concorde Agreement says they should. Minardi took a stand against it.

Some stand. Phil's right about the Concorde agreement, I do belive, though, that the latest Stoddart's saga has little to nothing to do with taking a stand against the forces of evil.

Ahh ok thanks guys. So after the first race u all think the red bull was just a fluke or here to go? Also waht bout BAR disspointment?

Neither have much to do with the topic at hand, do they? Both topics have been briefly discussed in the OZ GP thread.

Some stand.

All poor little Stoddie can afford... :sly: