FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Kiwi_Chris]

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?

Because the statute's are the 'laws' that govern the running of the FIA. This goes deeper than the Mclaren Fine and NOONE that involved in a formula one team should have been or should be on the wmsc.
The wmsc is meant to be made up of the member clubs to try to eliminate as much bias in the desision making as possible.
I would be questioning it just as much if it was Ron Dennis, Nick Fry or Christian horner in the seat.

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.

Ferrarifan think about things a bit more from a global perspective and not a 'ferrari rules Mclaren sucks' attitude

[FerrariFan63]

im not the one stating Ron has done heaps for F1 am i and the fact is he is STILL employed by Ferrari

now you agree all he has done is looked out for ferrari yet just before you say he did heaps for F1

mate youre going to dig your way to china at this rate

He brought the most glorious period ever to F1, Ferrari 2000-2004. That benefitted Ferrari, sure, but also F1. As many new fans were bought to the sport during these glory years. 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.

Todt would certainly break his ties with Ferrari if he took the top FIA job. That, I believe, would show him to not be the man that you think he is. If he took on the FIA Presidency while still being employed by Ferrari, then I'd agree that to be wrong.

[FerrariFan63]

Because the statute's are the 'laws' that govern the running of the FIA. This goes deeper than the Mclaren Fine and NOONE that involved in a formula one team should have been or should be on the wmsc.
The wmsc is meant to be made up of the member clubs to try to eliminate as much bias in the desision making as possible.
I would be questioning it just as much if it was Ron Dennis, Nick Fry or Christian horner in the seat.

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.

Ferrarifan think about things a bit more from a global perspective and not a 'ferrari rules Mclaren sucks' attitude

F1 is bigger than any one person. Take any one person away from F1, and F1 would be fine. That includes the best candidate to succeed Mosley, whoever that might be.

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.

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.

I've been lauding McLaren's performance this weekend. I don't think it's fair to characterise me as being a kneejerk "Ferrari rules McLaren sucks" kind of person.

Ferrari benefitted massively from Todt. I would like all teams and F1 in general to benefit in the same way.

[Kiwi_Chris]

Because the statute's are the 'laws' that govern the running of the FIA. This goes deeper than the Mclaren Fine and NOONE that involved in a formula one team should have been or should be on the wmsc.
The wmsc is meant to be made up of the member clubs to try to eliminate as much bias in the desision making as possible.
I would be questioning it just as much if it was Ron Dennis, Nick Fry or Christian horner in the seat.

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.

Ferrarifan think about things a bit more from a global perspective and not a 'ferrari rules Mclaren sucks' attitude

F1 is bigger than any one person. Take any one person away from F1, and F1 would be fine. That includes the best candidate to succeed Mosley, whoever that might be.

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.

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.

I've been lauding McLaren's performance this weekend. I don't think it's fair to characterise me as being a kneejerk "Ferrari rules McLaren sucks" kind of person.

Ferrari benefitted massively from Todt. I would like all teams and F1 in general to benefit in the same way.

The WMSC isnt solely concerned with F1 so how would Todt be benifical on it?
Even if it was having Todt on the WMSC wouldnt help all teams in F1 he would (and quite rightly so) still be biased towards ferrari and their engine customers in his role as CEO of ferrari.
the WMSC should be completly independant with no one involved with the running of a team or the sport involved.
The statuate is there for a reason, the FIA represents clubs , not teams so therefore no person who is not a representitive of a national motoring club (RAC, ADAC, AAA etc) should not be on any FIA councils.
If Todt had the intrest of F1 in his mind he should be participating in one of the working groups and NOT be involved in the FIA judical process that penalises drivers/teams.
How would you be feeling if it was Ron Dennis voting on wether ferrari would be penalised or not, im sure your view on the statuates would change

[FerrariFan63]

The WMSC isnt solely concerned with F1 so how would Todt be benifical on it?

Because he is a skilled, dedicated, and experienced individual. And his motorsport experience is far from just being working for/with Ferrari. This Wikipedia page is rather sketchy, but just look at his history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Todt

I find it difficult to believe that your arguments against Todt running the FIA are well researched when you have not checked such basic facts, even when I have bought them up in the thread beforehand.

Even if it was having Todt on the WMSC wouldnt help all teams in F1 he would (and quite rightly so) still be biased towards ferrari and their engine customers in his role as CEO of ferrari.

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.

the WMSC should be completly independant with no one involved with the running of a team or the sport involved.
The statuate is there for a reason, the FIA represents clubs , not teams so therefore no person who is not a representitive of a national motoring club (RAC, ADAC, AAA etc) should not be on any FIA councils.
If Todt had the intrest of F1 in his mind he should be participating in one of the working groups and NOT be involved in the FIA judical process that penalises drivers/teams.
How would you be feeling if it was Ron Dennis voting on wether ferrari would be penalised or not, im sure your view on the statuates would change

Jean Todt did not vote on whether McLaren should be penalised or not. A lesser man may not have abstained from this decision.

[Kiwi_Chris]

Ok i know Jean todts history, it is aclompished and he has done a lot for motorsport over the years, as has many other pple in the Formula one paddock.
yes i did misread the article in relation to Todt voting, but i stand by all my other comments.

My main point of argument is that the FIA is the institution that represents motoring clubs, not teams, manufacturers or race car constructors. Jean Todt is the CEO of a manufacturer and is still involved in a current Formula one constructer and thus has no role on the WMSC. That is not to say that he shouldnt be involved in the FIA, i know he will have skills that the FIA can use in its role as a motoring and motorsport body.

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.

[FerrariFan63]

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.

[Rivelution]

Besides Head's comments, which I believe are driven by self-interest.

They're driven by pure truth, like it or not.

[FerrariFan63]

They're driven by pure truth, like it or not.

How do you know them to be driven by pure truth?

[Rivelution]

They're driven by pure truth, like it or not.

How do you know them to be driven by pure truth?

How do you know Todt would be a good president? How do you know Todt would do a lot for the sport? How do you know Todt would drop his ties with Ferrari?

Look Todt is just as, if not more controversial than Mosley. Why the heck would you want to drop a creep for another creep? It just doesnt make sense, and for the sake of the sport Todt should not be president because it would be the same crap we have with Mosley.

[McLaren Fan]

He brought the most glorious period ever to F1, Ferrari 2000-2004. That benefitted Ferrari, sure, but also F1. As many new fans were bought to the sport during these glory years.

Yeah. I remember being laughed at for saying I liked Formula One in that era.

So, not only has Ferrari more representatives than any other team in the WMSC, now this. I always thought that there was a conflict of interest in Ecclestone and Todt's positions, but I assumed it was legal and just part of the FIA's bias in it's decision-making process, rather than something completely illegal and illegitimate.

FerrariFan63, having read a number of your posts on here, you are a hell of a lot more blinkered than your average Ferrari lamb. Get a life.

[FerrariFan63]

How do you know Todt would be a good president? How do you know Todt would do a lot for the sport? How do you know Todt would drop his ties with Ferrari?

Look Todt is just as, if not more controversial than Mosley. Why the heck would you want to drop a creep for another creep? It just doesnt make sense, and for the sake of the sport Todt should not be president because it would be the same crap we have with Mosley.

How do we know that anyone would be a good president? Well, we can look at their past experience and actions, and how they've interacted with the FIA in the past. This would give us the best indication we can get as to how they'd perform in the job. It's not perfect. And I see nobody out there whose past experience and actions, and the way they've worked with the FIA suggests that they'd be a better president than Todt. And if Mosley goes, someone has to take over. Even if we cannot absolutely guarantee how they'd perform in the job.

Todt would certainly be a controversial choice. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be chosen. If he's the right person for the job, then any controversy would soon pass and he'd be judged on his performance in the job, and his actions and inactions.

How do I know that he would drop his ties? I don't think there'd be any question of this. He wouldn't be able to do his job properly without quitting his position at Ferrari for precisely the reasons mentioned before. And I don't think he'd take on the job if he couldn't give it his all, as that's been how he's worked in the past.

[Rivelution]

He brought the most glorious period ever to F1, Ferrari 2000-2004. That benefitted Ferrari, sure, but also F1. As many new fans were bought to the sport during these glory years.

Actually viewing figures fell during those years because fans were getting tired of Ferrari and Schumacher. I feel bad for you if you think the most glorious period in F1 was probably the most boring years in F1.

[FerrariFan63]

Yeah. I remember being laughed at for saying I liked Formula One in that era.

So, not only has Ferrari more representatives than any other team in the WMSC, now this. I always thought that there was a conflict of interest in Ecclestone and Todt's positions, but I assumed it was legal and just part of the FIA's bias in it's decision-making process, rather than something completely illegal and illegitimate.

FerrariFan63, having read a number of your posts on here, you are a hell of a lot more blinkered than your average Ferrari lamb. Get a life.

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.

As for me being blinkered. There's a blanket assumption by some one here that Todt = bad. Why? And a knee-jerk reaction that any support of Ferrari and/or Todt is unthinking "lamb" behaviour. I think the blinkers are on others, not I.

[FerrariFan63]

Actually viewing figures fell during those years because fans were getting tired of Ferrari and Schumacher. I feel bad for you if you think the most glorious period in F1 was probably the most boring years in F1.

It's well publicised that figures fell in 2002. But they rose again in 2003. And the 2001 figures were high. I never claimed that viewing figures grew monotonically during those years.