F1's big decisions in the spotlight

Once again Formula 1 stands on the cusp of a 'should it; should it not?' question, in this case whether the sport should race in the troubled Black Sea region given the hostilities existent between Russia and Ukraine.

Certain sections of F1's media have even called upon the FIA to cancel the sport's inaugural Russian Grand Prix.

True, a lot of the 'noise' about racing in conflict regions has been suppressed by Jules Bianchi's horrifying accident, but still Fleet Street publications (and many of their foreign language equivalents) have remained rather stumm recently - particularly in view of their regular outbursts over Bahrain, when some embarked on Rambo-style surveillance operations.

It was remarkable that when given the opportunity of commenting on-record to a Russian journalist intent on bringing all three sides of the story - one perspective; the other; and the truth - they shied away. This begs the question whether said scribes (and their editors) have perhaps decided utmost discretion is the better part of literary valour.

The World Superbike Championship will not be seen in Russia this yea © LAT

Some journalists have pointed to the World Superbike Championship - which in July announced the cancellation of its Moscow round - as an example, but this fails to take into account that the event was canned by Dorna, SBK's commercial rights holder, rather than the FIM, two-wheeled sport's FIA equivalent.

Sources suggest Dorna's move, taken in conjunction with local promoter YMS Promotion, owes more to commercial pressures than conscience and international politics, with the conflict simply providing convenient cover. Note the final paragraph of the SBK release, and total lack of reference to FIM; indeed, a month later Dorna scrapped its South African SBK round, and Welkom hardly constitutes a war zone...

Therein lies the rub: unlike FIFA and IOC, motorsport's governing bodies have leased their properties to commercial entities, and are in any event prohibited by mandates from involving themselves in politics. This is borne out by Article 1 of the FIA's statutes: "The FIA shall refrain from manifesting racial, political or religious discrimination in the course of its activities and from taking any action in this respect."

With both Russia and Ukraine being full FIA members and thus equal in the body's eyes, it is unable to intervene, and is empowered only to cancel/postpone events in instances of clear and present danger, in which cases the FIA needs to follow guidelines issued by foreign offices.

In the absence of such advice, cancellation would need to come from the sport's commercial rights holder, Formula One Management, working in conjunction with the local promoter. Thus was the case with Bahrain's 2011 grand prix, ultimately cancelled by FOM (and the circuit) for logistical rather than political reasons. In fact, FOM attempted every which way to reinstate the race during the course of that season.

Those with a sense of history will recall that South Africa's 'apartheid grands prix' enjoyed FIA sanction until 1985 despite the country's political isolation; thereafter relentless commercial pressure from sponsors made further visits to Kyalami untenable. The race was replaced by Hungary's maiden grand prix - held in a country then under communist oppression - which again underscores the FIA's apolitical mandate.

F1 continued to race in South Africa until 1985 © LAT

In terms of their bilateral (commercial) agreements with FOM (and by virtue of signed entries into the annual championship), teams are contractually committed to racing wherever championship rounds are staged.

In the (unlikely) event that one of their number unilaterally withdraws from any race that team would leave itself in breach and therefore open to severe sanction by the CRH, unless its absence was through genuine force majeure.

Drivers, too, would pressure their employers to compete, for they are first and foremost racers, many of whom would readily trade elderly relatives for the next adrenaline rush. Then with many being, not to put too fine a point on it, 'pay drivers' who have commitments to personal sponsors, they are hardly likely to voluntarily destroy hard-earned relationships.

Sponsors and technical partners, too, wish to be active in Russia, and if Mercedes-Benz, a fully paid-up member of the DTM's team trio, willingly raced its saloons in one of its largest emerging markets, the Formula 1 championship leader is hardly likely to jib at racing on the Black Sea.

When all is said and done FOM has around 50 million extremely good reasons to stage the race, and, with Sochi's local promoter being very much a state-backed entity, zero pressure to cancel can be expected from these quarters. Thus, barring genuine issues of force majeure, Sochi's race will go ahead despite all the pre-race rhetoric.

Although a Formula 1 Calendar Commission (notionally) exists, in real terms FOM, as promoter of the championship - made up of individual legs staged by local organisations, who may or may not have direct links to local FIA motorsport franchise holders (colloquially known as ASNs) - decides the final schedule, which is in turn ratified by the FIA - which checks only on items such as safety and formalities.

Thus F1 goes where FOM decides and at times as decreed by FOM - hence racing in Japan at the height of Asia's typhoon season, from end-July to early-October - with late afternoon starts being increasingly prevalent as the championship ventures further east.

The Japanese GP has four times been affected by atrocious weather in a decade, while in the previous 20 years, when it was generally held late in October, it was hit once. Any wonder Phanfone, said by locals to be the most vicious such storm in a decade, struck on cue?

The Japanese GP went ahead despite the poor weather © LAT

In October flyaway freight, subsidised by FOM, is already in Asia for Singapore's round - such scheduling was initially made possible by Shanghai's late-season races in, then continued in tandem with Korea after China was switched to April - when Fuji's 2007 round ran almost 50 per cent of its overall distance behind a silver Mercedes safety car.

Said a senior F1 figure in as he anxiously scanned the flights screens for news of his flight out of Nagoya on Monday: "I guess if CVC ran golf they'd schedule the Swiss Open for January on the highest peaks in the Alps, and to hell with the quality of play or audiences..."

The situation is expected to be compounded in 2015, for the draft calendar shows Suzuka scheduled for September. But then F1 tsar and FOM CEO Bernie Ecclestone seldom travels to Japan, while this year senior lieutenant Pasquale Lattuneddu was in Russia easing matters ahead of the arrival of F1 in one of the most bureaucratic countries. Forget that the freight may not have survived Phanfone...

However, just as the staging of grands prix and their scheduling is within the gift of the commercial body, so are their event programmes - subject in both instances to, of course, adherence to FIA regulations and safety criteria. The rights-holder, in conjunction with local promoters, decides timing (hence night and twilight races) and supporting acts - provided FIA regulatory clauses such as curfews etc are strictly adhered to.

The FIA may, though, provide recommendations and be party to any decisions - invoking regulatory clauses where/if necessary - but the final decision rests with FOM. This was proven in no uncertain terms this weekend past when Ecclestone was quoted as stating the weekend schedule would not be amended to accommodate the typhoon.

The FIA's reaction? A low-key statement that the race would be red-flagged/cancelled/interrupted as demanded by conditions. FOM is no stranger to races held in failing light: In April 2009 this column severely criticised FOM for "wanting its cake and eating it" when it came to TV numbers. In short, by hoping to snare late afternoon audiences in Asia, early morning viewers in Europe and Saturday midnight owls in the west FOM has pushed the boundaries in eastern time zones - and thus 3pm or even 5pm starts are not uncommon.

The 2009 Malaysian GP was abandoned early © LAT

In Malaysia that year FOM backed itself into a corner with a 4pm start, being forced to abort the race at half distance due to torrential rain which ceased as light began failing - which, of course, caused TV numbers to drop due south.

FOM did, though learn from the experience: Following a lengthy telecom with Ecclestone, from 2010 onwards Malaysia's rounds have started at 3pm as suggested, rather than 4pm.

Folk who called on the FIA to reschedule Sunday's grand prix due to forecasts of dire weather - some suggested a Saturday race, others a Sunday noon start - simply do not grasp the body's role as regulator. Their target should have been FOM and the promoter, who not for the first time refused to take history on board.

Allegedly the former was concerned about TV contracts and the latter that fans would not make it to the circuit timeously, and thus demand refunds. Had the FIA in any way interfered with the schedule it may have exposed itself to massive compensation for lost revenues claims from broadcasters and suchlike - possibly to the degree of bankruptcy.

Ultimately the decision proved correct - Jules Bianchi's terrible accident notwithstanding, which most drivers agreed could have occurred wherever Formula 1 cars race - with Niki Lauda praising the FIA: "You cannot say anything was done wrong," said the Austrian, who understands motorsport's inherent dangers better than most, post-race.

"It was started in the most sensible way, and this is what they did. But they could have started earlier. There is no question about it; [the weather] was foreseeable, we could have started at 1pm."

Possibly he should mention that to his former team boss...

That said, just two drivers have subsequently complained about the conditions and bad light - Adrian Sutil, who had the accident that triggered the double yellows under which Bianchi crashed at high speed, and Felipe Massa, the victim of the last life-threatening crash in F1 - with all the rest stating they had raced in worse conditions.

Ecclestone's absence was no last-minute decision either: sources advised a month ago that he would not be flying to Japan, and the fact that no individual could readily step into the breach is just another indictment of CVC's management of the sport's commercial rights: there is no designated successor for the 83-year-old. That is one of the first lessons that should be taken aboard after this utterly chaotic weekend.