The implications of the Bahrain situation

What a mess. There is simply no other word to describe the situation Formula 1 currently finds itself in. This comes as no surprise for, as this column pointed out last week, the sport singularly fails to do the right thing when faced with thorny issues, preferring to procrastinate until all viable options have evaporated, and only poor compromises remain.

This is particularly so where vested interests are present, and never has this been more obvious than with the farcical Bahrain situation.

At least two parties (Bernie Ecclestone, whose companies stood to gain around £15m had the race gone ahead; and Shaik Abdulla Bin Isa Al Khalifa, younger brother of the Crown Prince, Chairman of the FIA's CIK Karting Commission, member of the WMSC, and President of the Automobile Federation of Bahrain) should by rights have declared their conflicting interests to the World Motor Sport Council in advance, then offered to recuse themselves.

The matter instead went ahead apparently with not a soul even accurately recording the votes - Todt later told the BBC that he believed the vote to have been unanimous and declared it so when no one raised an objection.

Not only that, but the WMSC failed to abide by its own regulations through not even having the courtesy of sounding out all the teams, or at least having the courtesy of taking their very real objections into account.

Enough has been written by commentators across the world about this subject, so further (virtual) ink need not be wasted here.

The drivers though, particularly Mark Webber - whose outspokenness is a breath of fresh air in a paddock sterilised by the FIA's code of conduct as forced through last year - have a right to be heard, for they are the ones on the front line while WMSC members comfortably park on couches before their massive TV sets.

Again, to disregard the drivers' input smacks of the level of disrespect which epitomised former FIA regimes.

The likes of Webber and Rubens Barrichello, just two who spoke out, have proven they have no issues with risking life or limb out on the track for sporting purposes, but they have every right to draw the line at doing the same for political purposes - and the FIA release makes no bones about the decision being a political initiative of the type more usually implemented by Hilary Clinton.

However, the report submitted to the WMSC by FIA Vice-President Carlos Gracia smacks of expediency, and if it was the Spaniard's intention to sway the WMSC, he certainly succeeded. However, if it was to facilitate the return of the grand prix to Bahrain in 2011 in order to polish the place's tarnished reputation, he achieved precisely the opposite, for international attention is now focussed on this dire situation.

Bernie Ecclestone and Carlos Gracia © sutton-images.com

Who knows to what extent the sport's standing has been damaged, by this affair. Could F1 ever again enter the country with its head held high after this debacle; would F1 ever again be made welcome by the majority of folk who wish for nothing more than democratic rule?

That said, when ex-president Max Mosley waded into the affair by suggesting the race should be cancelled on humanitarian grounds he was being rather disingenuous, for it was he who was a prime mover behind the 1981 rebel South African Grand Prix, the country's apartheid atrocities notwithstanding. Then, while chairman of a FISA committee (effectively the forerunner of the WMSC) he was party to the Hungarian Grand Prix being promoted in a country under Soviet rule.

Above all, during his various interviews Mosley failed to declare a personal difference with Bahrain: in 2008, immediately after his sex scandal broke, the very Crown Prince wrote to Mosley advising he would not be welcome on the desert island. Could that have influenced his comments? One prefers to believe not, but an open declaration would surely have put the matter beyond question.

Then there is the question of the team principals: they singularly failed to take a stand on moral grounds; in fact, if the FIA media release is to be believed, two of their number, in their WMSC capacities, actually voted in favour of the Bahraini race being reinstated.

For four days, the Formula One Teams' Association - representing all teams bar HRT - went back and forth as its members sought a 'united position', eventually telling Todt and Ecclestone they refused to race in December on personnel and logistical grounds, seemingly putting paid to the race, for their unanimous agreement was required to change the calendar in terms of Article 66 of the FIA's International Sporting Code.

Did they realise Article 66 existed before Mosley alluded to it during a BBC interview? Doubtful, for they would surely have kicked against the 30 October date immediately after news of the FIA's intended date change broke over three weeks ago.

For that matter, did the WMSC know of the existence and/or provisions of Article 66, or did this august body of blazers simply attempt to bulldoze the Federation's own international code for reasons which to this day remain unfathomable.

Either way, a lack of professionalism is conspicuously present, which does not bode at all well for the upcoming Concorde Agreement negotiations.

That said, this column senses that executive factions within FOTA were reluctant to take a moral stand, and thus they stormed through the Article 66 door. The preferred scenario would have been for FOTA chairman Martin Whitmarsh to recuse himself from discussions on the basis that his McLaren team is 42% owned by the Bahrain sovereign wealth fund.

Max Mosley © LAT

Did that happen? Not according to well-placed sources. Another suggested FOTA's preferred option was a waiting game: having observed the FIA dig a hole for itself, the body kept its head below the parapet as the governing body dug itself out. That way FOTA could plead no involvement...

That even the circuit had no idea about the implications of any date change on the teams was evident from comments made by BIC Chairman, Zayed R Alzayani, who last week attempted to counter the staff issue by suggesting the season had been shortened, rather than lengthened as it had. In his opinion, the season started two weeks later due to the scrapping of the original round.

Well, under the original time-table the season commenced with testing on 1 February, extending to November 27, with the country's problems not even interrupting the programme as car development continued, with a test in Barcelona added to replace the cancelled session.

A 4 or 11 December date for the displaced Indian Grand Prix would certainly add a week (or two) to that schedule. F1 personnel value their quality time after nine months on the road, as anyone surely would, too, under similar circumstances.

Talking of which, it seems rather strange that the FIA's press release provided no revised date for the Indian round, leaving the matter in limbo until either the next WMSC meeting (three months hence), or a decision via fax vote.

By the same token, Ecclestone's interim suggestion that the Indian date remain as October 30, with Bahrain being added in December if matters stabilised, is equally unworkable for teams and sponsors need to plan for the finale while playing havoc with points' predictions.

The fact of the matter is that Bahrain reneged on its original date due to civil unrest. As related here last week, the 2010-12 Concorde Agreement makes provision for cancellation of races due to civil unrest, and Ecclestone should simply return the Bahraini's money as provided for in the agreement and once and for all forget the notion of a 2011 race in Bahrain. 2012? Sure - when and if the situation is normal.

By the same token the Concorde Agreement makes provision for a maximum of 20 races per season, yet the FIA's release listed 21 2012 rounds as 'confirmed'. However, according to sources, Clause 10.4 states the Commercial Rights Holder shall not include on any final version of the calendar without the consent of all teams more than 20 grands prix in any one season - subject only to Clause 10.5, which stipulates their geographic spread.

However, no sooner had the release hit the streets than Nick Craw, Chairman of the FIA Senate, told US reporters who queried Austin's date due to the heat and humidity in Texas in mid-June (+40C/80%): "This is the proposed date (for the US GP). The date won't be final until the September or December WMSC meeting. A fall date is, therefore, possible, which would possibly offer cooler weather."

Excuse us, but was the calendar not 'confirmed'; what, then, is the difference between 'confirmed' and 'final version'?

Then to further confuse this very confusing issue - one which has teams, hoteliers, circuits and fans guessing, and thus unable to plan for 2012 - Todt subsequently told the Spanish newspaper Diario Sport "Absolutely not" when asked if there would be 21 races in 2012. "There are 21 dates, but the championship will be 20 grands prix."

Make of that what you can...

Jean Todt © sutton-images.com

Finally, in a release which contained just three Formula 1 topics, two of which were utterly confusing, the third was little better, for under '2013 Regulations' the document stated "The Technical Regulations for 2013 were approved" before listing the various provisions. So far so good, but then came the caveat: the implementation date could be 'redefined' by fax vote. As the implementation date simply cannot be advanced, that can only mean introduction will be delayed, meaning once again no final decision regarding this crucial matter.

So, three F1 points discussed, one of which caused such global uproar that matters overtook the FIA before even the teams took their 'soft' stand; another which is far from 'confirmed' despite the catchphrase, and a third essentially remains undecided for another month.

All this raises questions about the FIA's governance, and, by extension, Todt's presidency. During his record-setting career at Ferrari the diminutive Frenchman was nicknamed 'Napoleon' on account of the military fashion in which he directed the team to victory after victory.

However, Napoleon eventually 'met his Waterloo' at the hands of (mostly British) troops at the (now) Belgian town of the same name in June 1815. Could Todt have met his in Paris in June 2011?