Grilling the GPDA over its real agenda

Arriving in Bahrain, there were two topics on every pair of paddock lips: the qualifying fiasco (with most accentuating the first three letters), and the post-Melbourne letter circulated via Twitter by the Grand Prix Drivers' Association under their hashtag #RacingUnited.

These questions were followed almost immediately by another pair: what were the drivers trying to achieve, and why did they do it? Clearly someone had been herding cats, for seldom (make that 'never' in recent times) had a group of such disparate individuals - many of whom are not even members of the select organisation - seemingly been so united by a single topic. Not even the cockpit halo found unity.

Simply put, the drivers' letter reeked of politics, and on the basis of the definition of the very word on Wikipedia (from Greek: politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens", is the making of a common decision for a group of people, that is, a uniform decision applying in the same way to all members of the group), the letter surely was political, particularly when expanded upon: more widely it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance - organised control over a human community, particularly a state. While F1 is no state, it certainly is in a state at present.

In order to gain clarity on the GPDA's motives, this writer requested an interview with chairman Alex Wurz, which was readily agreed to. But, first things first: why did the Austrian, whom many consider too intelligent and articulate to have been a grand prix driver in the first place, accept the leadership of the body despite having retired from the F1 cockpit in 2007?

"I had done it in the past with Michael [Schumacher], then obviously stopped and other people took over," he says. "Then Sebastian Vettel talked to a few drivers, who said they would like if I did it, and instantly I said, 'Actually, no, I don't like to do it, I would really think it's better if someone of you guys do it'.

"But they came back and we had various meetings, and they said 'Come just to one of our drivers' meetings, we will all wait for you and let's discuss it'.

"They got me on one thing: this sport has given me a lot and I always believe in this, maybe in an ideal picture I always believe that if we drivers, who are very fortunate and privileged, cannot at some point speak together, about whatever it is, even if for the sad days when you have to organise a funeral or send letters to the family, or also on the good days to be happy together and enjoy it...

"We are so privileged, if we can't show society outside that, beside all the fighting on-track, we can also be united."

Ahh, that word... So, a question of comradeship?

"Yes, and that's how they got me. At this meeting, it was the weekend where unfortunately we had this tragic accident of Jules [Bianchi], and that just triggered it. So I said 'OK, I will do it, I will represent you'. That's how it happened."

Just to be clear, it was October 2014, at the Japanese Grand Prix?

"Yes, but we had the meeting before the accident."

What, though, does the entrepreneurial 42-year-old Wurz, married to ex-Benetton press officer and author Julia with whom he has three sons, aim to achieve as chairman?

"One is, as I had been there before, it's always an organisation which goes from strong-weak, strong-weak, depending on really what's happening, but also for the ideal reason I told you before, about this comradeship and making sure this continues, because that's part of the sport, and it should be.

"Equally, and I'm very open here, in the office of the GPDA, we have a secretary [Giselle Sohm]. She's done a fantastic job since the days of Prost, the Senna accident, she's with us, and quite a few of us really want it to just keep going for her to keep the job. On top of it, it should be that we drivers have one organisation where we can go beyond 'Ah, you pushed me; I pushed you'. We just collect our united opinion."

Which leads seamlessly to the next question, namely: "What do drivers pay?"

"It's a flat fee of 1000 euros for reserve drivers, 2000 euros for full [F1] driver members, then two hundred euros per point."

Of the 22 drivers and something like 10 reserves, how many members do you have?

"I should know that, but I don't know." He promises to get back to us, and after an exchange of emails the response is: "We decided not to publish the membership list," so no one is any the wiser.

Whatever, we do know that Lewis Hamilton, Felipe Massa, Valtteri Bottas, Nico Hulkenberg and Max Verstappen are not members - and, as Wurz says, "Membership is not obligatory." However, one must wonder about the secrecy, particularly given the GPDA's stated mission of informing fans.

Then the question: what role does Richard Woods (former FIA director of communications, and political guru) play in the GPDA, given that Wurz and the former Labour party spindoctor go back a long way via the FIA Institute, where Wurz was involved in young driver training and evaluation?

"None. His company did some artworks [including #RacingUnited] a while ago, but he has nothing to do with this, especially the latest stuff. I know Richard because of the Institute; the same with [former rally co-driver] Robert Reid [who is attempting to float a WRC Drivers' Association].

"But, you know, this rally 'GPDA', they at one point contacted me, and said 'Could they understand how the GPDA works, the GPDA statutes?' Obviously it's not a secret, so we are happy to show [them] what we do."

On to the political slant, then, more specifically Spanish sports news outlet Marca, which quoted Wurz as saying: "You can compare [the letter] in some way to politics and the difference between those governing and the opposition."

Wurz explains: "When you look carefully, the interview was when I was at the prologue for WEC, a special test in the World Endurance Championship. They interviewed me, when you read exactly what was quoted and said, and what he said, and interpreted it, it's a different story..."

Your version is?

"I said 'You can't compare it to politics because we are not a political body, but in politics opposition is for nations very healthy, because it gives an opportunity for people to speak up, that leaders look at it and if this message is very good, the leaders would have to react to it. This is how politics works'.

"I only used this comparison to say why did we speak out loud. Again, I said 'Actually, we are not a political body, we don't have actually a say, there's no one that can vote for us, there's actually no political agenda behind it, other than drivers passionately'."

But there was a distinctly political flavour, the way it came across...

"Here I have to be maybe a little bit, not aggressive, but direct: how people interpret what is written is your personal interpretation, which is fine, this is your right. Everyone in the paddock, and people always think first 'What is the motive behind it?' But we are trying to state our motive at the beginning; it's just pure love for the sport. That's the motive."

In which case, why did the GPDA not follow the normal channels? The team principals say the drivers have never spoken to them about their concerns...

"Yeah, but [it was] 100 per cent of the drivers who wanted to go this way."

But should you as chairman not have said to the drivers they should go through the channels first? That is why it resonates politically.

"You know, partly, and sometimes largely, we did [make our concerns known]. Go on a search engine and read interviews individual drivers did before, they have spoken about it.

"If you speak about it in interviews or with people in individual conversations; if people don't recall it, or think it was a specific request for us to address it, then, again, it's really how people interpret it, and maybe they were too busy with certain things.

"At the end of the day I think it doesn't matter, because this is just the collective opinion of the drivers, and by and large the fans, and by and large the people who are working in the paddock, and occasionally even the stakeholders themselves.

"Drivers don't claim to know any better, we don't claim to have the wisdom to navigate through such complex agreements and decisions which is a sporting and political mix, but we are asking the stakeholders, including the teams, including everyone, could we review this process which seems to be in a gridlock."

Indeed, did they consider sharing their concerns with (Wurz's fellow multiple Le Mans 24 Hours winner) Tom Kristensen, the driver representative on the FIA World Motor Sport Council - a position created by FIA president Jean Todt? Or the Driver Commission, recently instituted by the FIA? Should the GPDA maybe have a seat in the WMSC?

"That's really a question you shouldn't ask me, but this is not about gaining any positions or being on any forum," says Wurz.

Surely it's about gaining a platform. Did they approach Todt or F1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone?

"Yeah... We had definitely [spoken] to individuals on various levels. On individual subjects we've spoken to Bernie and we have replies, like he always replies."

On that note: Would not a face-to-face delegation have achieved more?

"Look, I sit here as the chairman, I understand, but 100 per cent of the drivers have chosen this way, we have discussed various ways - there are many ways to come to Rome, apparently.

"It wasn't my decision, it was the drivers' decision...because the drivers, if you ask, will maybe answer in a different way. With the decisions being done over years, over months, over whatever period of time you want to view it, some of the ideas coming out of the various groups like the Strategy Group, F1 Commission, they said 'What's the most efficient way to address it?' This is why we've done it [this way]."

Todt convened a media session in Bahrain during which the Frenchman, a former drivers' representative on the World Rally Commission during his title-winning co-driver days and championship-winning team boss at Peugeot and Ferrari, was questioned about the GPDA letter. His responses:

"I respect very much drivers' opinions and input. For three or more years we've had the drivers' commission, with a driver on the World Council, which is the first time that has ever happened.

"Going on past experience [at Peugeot, Ferrari], I never went to a meeting without asking our drivers, having shown them the agenda, for some comment. I would expect each team has the opportunity to speak to their drivers before going to a meeting, and drivers also have the opportunity of talking to their teams before going to these meetings.

"The letter was not directly sent to me. Nevertheless I answered to them via a private letter, and invited them at any time to speak with me at their best convenience. I'm very happy to have their influence, their input.

"With all due respect to the drivers, if you ask them how governance works, it would be doubtful they know. Maybe I'm wrong."

Ecclestone, although initially more supportive, was scathing in Bahrain:

"The drivers can say what they like. They can't do anything. Everyone has got an opinion. They haven't got any strength. They've got an opinion.

"Really their discussion is with their team. They are only saying what their teams have told them to say. They [the teams] think it's better, because people listen to drivers. You're listening to the drivers.

"Some of [the drivers] are [windbags]."

Wurz's compatriot Niki Lauda cut the GPDA no slack, either: "Mr Wurz got together and spoke in the name of all the drivers. It's all bullshit. This is Wurz alone. He was the master of this. We had nothing to do with it."

The overwhelming sentiments in the Bahrain paddock from such as Martin Brundle (former GPDA chairman during the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger), Sir Jackie Stewart (who, as chairman, waged safety crusades for which all in F1 should be truly thankful) and Jacques Villeneuve (who steadfastly refused to partake in the organisation) were that drivers were entitled to their opinions, but could have selected their platform better.

Which brings us full circle - may the reader decide: Was the motivation political or driven by pure passion?