I don't see the problem. McLaren cheated, so they should be punished. Todt is far more important a person in F1 than anyone else on the WMSC, so what does it matter what some obscure statute says?
Ferrari have cheated and been in the wrong before, and they're not punished or are given a slap on the wrist. Renault and Toyota were up to their necks with McLaren and Ferrari data respectively, but they weren't punished. McLaren, with one rogue employee, had the book thrown at them. Well, that's not totally true, for they did allow the drivers' title battle to continue, lest Ecclestone lose some television money. Shades of 1999, when a rather lose version on the rule pertaining to barge boards etc. was put forward by Ferrari (who actually accepted their cars were illegal only a few days before!) and accepted by the FIA so the constructors' and drivers' titles would not be decided before the final race, which would again see Ecclestone lose a few bob. Can you not see a recurrent theme here?
Todt has done nothing for the sport all he has done is look out for Ferrari 
and obviously you do not know what a troll is 
I'm no more a troll than you are a billy goat. I don't feel that my posts here are any less serious, or appropriate, than what I see others posting.
And if you say that all Todt has done is look out for Ferrari, what do you expect him to do when he is employed by Ferrari? What has Ron Dennis done apart from look out for McLaren? What has Head done apart from look out for Williams. What has Nick Fry done apart from ... ah, that one doesn't quite work. Now Todt has left Ferrari, particularly if he severs all ties as I expect he will do if he becomes president, he can apply the same ability and work effort for Formula One as a whole.
Well, that's an interesting backtrack. Initially you claim that Jean Todt has done a hell of a lot for Formula One as a whole, now he's only done a lot for Ferrari because he worked for them, but could do a lot of good for Formula One in the future because he has all the right credentials. Make your mind up time.
Todt is not an important person in F1 he is an important person in Ferrari. F1 was fine before Todt and will be after Todt, he hasnt done anything for the sport as a whole but did wonders for turning Ferrari back into the powerhouse team it should have always been.
Many people said that after Ayrton Senna died, Formula One would decline. Fourteen years on and the sport's bigger than ever. If Formula One could survive Senna's death, it could survive anything, including Jean Todt not being involved in the sport.
Ron has done a lot for F1, but not quite as much as Todt. Todt has also worked in a wider variety of motorsports disciplines. Todt has also proved over a long time to be able to work well with the FIA, while Ron has usually been at loggerheads. That says a lot, and I think Todt is clearly a better candidate than Dennis.
Well, it's easy to work with an organisation that is essentially your benefactor.
How do you work out that Ron Dennis has done less for Formula One than Jean Todt, by the way?
The teams, including Ferrari, are a major part of F1. You can't consider F1 without considering the teams, and Ferrari is clearly historically the most important team. Even in the UK many people think of Ferrari first when they think of F1. With Lewismania, McLaren's profile has risen, but not to match Ferrari's profile.
That's not true. I've seen a hell of a lot more people around town etc. wearing McLaren shirts than people wearing Ferrari clothing. Then, in the days of McLaren domination and Williams' era of supremacy, you barely knew Ferrari existed, the only two Grands Prix being the exceptions were, of course, San Marino and Italy.
If there's a statute that says that Todt should not be on the WMSC, then I believe that it's the statute that is wrong, not Todt being on the WMSC.
So you seriously mean to say that after what others and I have said, you can't see anything at all which may be wrong with Todt being on the WMSC?
Can you please detail how he has been biased towards Ferrari in his work on the WMSC? That there may be be the potential for him to be biased, I agree. But I want evidence that he has been biased in reality.
You've backtracked once again. You claimed before that Todt would be a wonderful candidate for the job in question, but now you say he's the potential to be biased. Surely that's the matter solved now - that is why Formula One needs an impartial man in the job!
The WMSC though should only be comprised of the representitives of the clubs and orginisations that FIA set out to represent.
I find it offensive that you accuse me of not doing my research yet your arguments fly in the face of what the FIA and the WMSC were setup to represent.
Todt is a great manager and team builder - he is not a god and does not warrent a place on the council just because of his accomplashments in motorsport over the years.
Well, I can't see what's "offensive" of me accusing you of not doing your research since your previous post seemed to indicate - a lack of research. Seems a reasonable comment to me.
Clearly the FIA believes that Todt warrants a place on the council, because they've put him on it. And I've seen no evidence than he has been less than a useful and capable member of the council. Besides Head's comments, which I believe are driven by self-interest.
Well, you really must be blind, for Kiwi et al. have quoted God knows how much legal and historical material and it has still not permeated into your extremely thick cranium. The ironic truth is that you, FF63, are the one who does not have a clue.
The second part of your remark quoted immediately above this also goes completely against something you said earlier, which was that the FIA were a law unto themselves. So, not only do you endorse the FIA for breaking their own rules to achieve their ends, but you believe that the dictatorial regime is capable of making fair and impartial decisions!
Finally, you say Head's comments were motivated by self-interest (including the Williams team) and knock them back because of this, but yet believe that Todt's remarks are fine, despite saying earlier, of course, that he was acting in Ferrari's interests. That's a three-way contradiction.
I'm not commenting on the legality of the situation as I'm not a lawyer. But I do say that I believe that if the regulations do say that Todt shouldn't be on the WMSC, that it's the regulations that are wrong rather than the appointment of Todt.
Another contradiction! You say you're not in the legal profession, so can't comment on the legal position, but yet you've already done this on several occasions.
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988,
1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998,
1999, 2007McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
remind me never to play scrabble against you.
