interessante:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/...hreat.html
[br]
De igual modo isto parece.me bastante interessante:
"The French courts threw out Ferrari’s request for an injunction to stop the FIA making rules as it pleases in 2010. Some will see this as a defeat for the Italian team, and suggest that the fight is over and that the Formula Teams’ Association (FOTA) will now fold up and disappear. I am sure that is not the case at all. The French courts have traditionally avoided getting involved in FIA disputes. It is easier that way. They let the sport sort itself out.
From where I am sitting, I see Ferrari having lost a battle, but in return it has gained an important new weapon and that leaves the FIA swimming in very dangerous waters – and it is all written down in court papers.
Why?
Because in the middle of 2000 the European heads of government gathered for a Council of Europe in Nice, just down the road from where I currently sit in Monte Carlo. One of their aims of that meeting was to to define how to apply European Union law to the governance of sport. They ended up drafting a document which set out the general principles by which EU institutions should deal with sport, stressing its support for the independence of sports organisations and their right to organise themselves through the appropriate structures. They also recognised the role of the federations in ensuring stability in sport and their responsibility to develop and nurture the sport at grass roots level. This agreement became known as The Nice Declaration and is often used by sporting federations to justify their own existence.
Hidden away in the boring small print, there were some qualifications added to the acceptance that federations should have power, notably the one that says that this power is only recognised “with due regard for national and Community legislation and on the basis of a democratic and transparent method of operation”.
When I began to think about this, I reached the conclusion that Ferrari may not care very much if they won or lost in Paris. What they achieved was to to put on the record the fact that they have enjoyed a special relationship with the FIA. Many suspected it, no-one knew for sure. We all knew that Ferrari got extra money, but who knew of the veto? You can hear the lawyers already beginning to argue that the Ferrari veto was neither democratic, nor transparent. You can hear them questioning whether the FIA should continue to be recognised by the EU…
And at this point one must screech to a halt and put things into some kind of perspective. Forget the budget cap and all the other smoke that is swirling around. How can an independent governing body of a sport, justify a special relationship with one team that allows that organisation to not only have a pile more money than its rivals, and also grants it the right to veto rule changes? I can imagine that Max Mosley, being the clever soul and (spectacular) survivor that he is, will have 412 reasons why it is all completely right and why anyone who asks the question is obviously not intellectually capable of anything other than sewing mail bags, but for me it is like the International Olympic Committee allowing Russia to stop the 100m sprint if their team does not happen to have any good sprinters at that particular moment.
When all is said and done, this is all legal jibber-jabber. A sport gets what it deserves in terms of governance. If people within the sport feel that something is wrong and feel that normal channels do not do what they are supposed to do, then either the management is fine but misunderstood, or the sport is rotten to the core and cannot fix itself. In such a case then an outside force might be needed to solve the problem, or at least address the questions to see if there is a real need to intervene. The fact that the question has to be asked is worrying in itself.
The role of the FIA membership is not to simply follow the president wherever he goes. The responsibility of the FIA delegates is to make sure that the sport is run in a democratic and transparent fashion. If the FIA membership fails in that task and an external force comes in and finds the sport to be wanting, then the delegates deserve no mercy. The “I was only following orders” defence is not considered acceptable.
A good example of this is what happened to Britain’s Metropolitan Police in the late 1970s. For some years there had been questions about whether or not the policing of London was being done in a fair and correct manner, with allegations that there was collusion going on between gangs of robbers and high-ranking police officers. In the end an investigation called Operation Countryman was begun, headed by a country policeman. It took six years and resulted in the removal of 400 officers. There were recommendations that 300 of these should be prosecuted, but the politicians were not keen on that. The bad apples had been thrown out and the public regained confidence in the policing methods.
What Ferrari has done with the legal action in Paris is to raise the question of governance beyond the normal tittle-tattle of the sport."
in http://joesaward.wordpress.com/
A acrescentar isto, "ouvi" algures que a Ferrari poderia criar um novo campeonato, onde equipas como Toyota, RedBull, Renault poderiam fazer parte.
Verdade ou mentira não sei. Mas ja era altura da F1 ganhar um novo rumo, bem longe dos 2 estarolas.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/...hreat.html
[br]
De igual modo isto parece.me bastante interessante:
"The French courts threw out Ferrari’s request for an injunction to stop the FIA making rules as it pleases in 2010. Some will see this as a defeat for the Italian team, and suggest that the fight is over and that the Formula Teams’ Association (FOTA) will now fold up and disappear. I am sure that is not the case at all. The French courts have traditionally avoided getting involved in FIA disputes. It is easier that way. They let the sport sort itself out.
From where I am sitting, I see Ferrari having lost a battle, but in return it has gained an important new weapon and that leaves the FIA swimming in very dangerous waters – and it is all written down in court papers.
Why?
Because in the middle of 2000 the European heads of government gathered for a Council of Europe in Nice, just down the road from where I currently sit in Monte Carlo. One of their aims of that meeting was to to define how to apply European Union law to the governance of sport. They ended up drafting a document which set out the general principles by which EU institutions should deal with sport, stressing its support for the independence of sports organisations and their right to organise themselves through the appropriate structures. They also recognised the role of the federations in ensuring stability in sport and their responsibility to develop and nurture the sport at grass roots level. This agreement became known as The Nice Declaration and is often used by sporting federations to justify their own existence.
Hidden away in the boring small print, there were some qualifications added to the acceptance that federations should have power, notably the one that says that this power is only recognised “with due regard for national and Community legislation and on the basis of a democratic and transparent method of operation”.
When I began to think about this, I reached the conclusion that Ferrari may not care very much if they won or lost in Paris. What they achieved was to to put on the record the fact that they have enjoyed a special relationship with the FIA. Many suspected it, no-one knew for sure. We all knew that Ferrari got extra money, but who knew of the veto? You can hear the lawyers already beginning to argue that the Ferrari veto was neither democratic, nor transparent. You can hear them questioning whether the FIA should continue to be recognised by the EU…
And at this point one must screech to a halt and put things into some kind of perspective. Forget the budget cap and all the other smoke that is swirling around. How can an independent governing body of a sport, justify a special relationship with one team that allows that organisation to not only have a pile more money than its rivals, and also grants it the right to veto rule changes? I can imagine that Max Mosley, being the clever soul and (spectacular) survivor that he is, will have 412 reasons why it is all completely right and why anyone who asks the question is obviously not intellectually capable of anything other than sewing mail bags, but for me it is like the International Olympic Committee allowing Russia to stop the 100m sprint if their team does not happen to have any good sprinters at that particular moment.
When all is said and done, this is all legal jibber-jabber. A sport gets what it deserves in terms of governance. If people within the sport feel that something is wrong and feel that normal channels do not do what they are supposed to do, then either the management is fine but misunderstood, or the sport is rotten to the core and cannot fix itself. In such a case then an outside force might be needed to solve the problem, or at least address the questions to see if there is a real need to intervene. The fact that the question has to be asked is worrying in itself.
The role of the FIA membership is not to simply follow the president wherever he goes. The responsibility of the FIA delegates is to make sure that the sport is run in a democratic and transparent fashion. If the FIA membership fails in that task and an external force comes in and finds the sport to be wanting, then the delegates deserve no mercy. The “I was only following orders” defence is not considered acceptable.
A good example of this is what happened to Britain’s Metropolitan Police in the late 1970s. For some years there had been questions about whether or not the policing of London was being done in a fair and correct manner, with allegations that there was collusion going on between gangs of robbers and high-ranking police officers. In the end an investigation called Operation Countryman was begun, headed by a country policeman. It took six years and resulted in the removal of 400 officers. There were recommendations that 300 of these should be prosecuted, but the politicians were not keen on that. The bad apples had been thrown out and the public regained confidence in the policing methods.
What Ferrari has done with the legal action in Paris is to raise the question of governance beyond the normal tittle-tattle of the sport."
in http://joesaward.wordpress.com/
A acrescentar isto, "ouvi" algures que a Ferrari poderia criar um novo campeonato, onde equipas como Toyota, RedBull, Renault poderiam fazer parte.
Verdade ou mentira não sei. Mas ja era altura da F1 ganhar um novo rumo, bem longe dos 2 estarolas.