Why the Bahrain debate is different this time

Let's not kid ourselves: motorsport's major players, particularly those in Formula 1, have long permitted the sport to be used for political propaganda purposes, and any pretence to the contrary is disingenuous.

Forget Hitler's races, for proof look no further than apartheid South Africa. For many years F1, then effectively ruled by a Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone-dominated FOCA, was the only world sport to venture on the country's soil. The repressive government offered 'export marketing' (double) tax breaks to entities prepared to publicise the country, which were exploited then by sponsors and race promoters alike.

The 1985 South African GP, blighted by drivers and teams withdrawing on flimsy grounds to avoid controversy, was the last held before Nelson Mandela's release. Thereafter South Africa was struck off the calendar, but only after Australian cargo handlers refused to off-load F1's kit, proclaiming it 'tainted'. The race's replacement? The 1986 Hungarian Grand Prix, beyond the Iron Curtain, in a country under Soviet control...

Then, midway between Mandela's February 1990 walk to freedom and the country's first free elections a little over four years later, the still-racial country hosted 1992 and '93 grands prix under the banner of 'nation building' - coincidentally or not, South Africa has not since had F1 cars race on its soil.

Since then no grand prix has proven as controversial as Bahrain's recent attempts. It is a matter of record that the 2011 round - scheduled for March 13 - was canned as a result of protests after the 'Day of Rage' on February 14. It is equally fact that the FIA, the commercial rights holder and the teams' collective failed to act decisively - leaving it to the Crown Prince to pull the postponement trigger after a week of intense media pressure.

Still F1 was hell-bent on its record-setting 20-race calendar, trying every which way to reschedule Bahrain. First the FIA released a flawed report compiled by an official who found Bahrain to be essentially rosy after an alleged sumptuous hosting by the royal family (a member of which sits on the FIA's World Motor Sport Council). Then, in May, this column broke news that Ecclestone planned an October slot, to be achieved by delaying India's inaugural race to December. The resultant furore knocked that firmly on the head.

The circuit may, or may not, stage a grand prix this year © LAT

The FIA has since consistently included Bahrain on provisional calendars, with the race confirmed for April 22 on the latest version: back-to-back with China's round a week earlier.

An idea of the polarisation caused by events in Bahrain - and hence the race - can be gleaned from media coverage. Last week a group of British lords wrote an open letter to The Times calling for it to be cancelled on human rights grounds.

Then, on the protest-hit first anniversary of the Day of Rage - itself the subject of over 1200 international news reports according to Google - a House of Commons All-Party Group on Bahrain called for the race to go ahead in a letter to the same publication, citing nation-building as reason (that there exists yet another Commons body - the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Democracy in Bahrain - underscores the polarisation).

In The Times of the same day, its Thunderer (guest) page carried a column penned by the senior political editor of New Statesman, in which he argued: "We must isolate the ruling regime." Mehdi Hasan added: "Cancelling the Bahrain Grand Prix, as demanded by a group of peers in a letter to The Times, should be only the first step."

Meanwhile, the Bahrain International Circuit itself caused controversy by focusing on romance on February 14: it emailed Valentine's Day gift suggestions. BIC likely hoped to deflect attention on the day, yet many found it distasteful to glorify love on the anniversary of a day when a number of circuit employees were tortured...

Such polemics are not, however, restricted to publications or greater Bahrain. In 2011 one of the event's most vociferous critics was Damon Hill, the 1996 world champion who proved instrumental in securing the future of the British Grand Prix after robust negotiations with Ecclestone. Now the Briton, who accompanied FIA president Jean Todt on a January fact-finding mission to the Kingdom, is a staunch supporter of F1's return.

Damon Hill visited Bahrain on a fact-finding mission in January © LAT

Hill, arguably the most decent and lucid man ever to earn the F1 crown, readily clarifies his controversial about-turn. "Last year the situation in Bahrain was [obviously] dire," he says. "The pro-democracy protests were brutally suppressed. The F1 race was cancelled, naturally, because of the instability and concerns for the safety of visitors. In my view, the decision to reinstate the race was taken without any real attempt to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, or before any of the independent investigations and reports into events had been completed, or even started!

"To have returned to Bahrain under those circumstances would have been tacit approval of the methods used by the Bahraini security forces, methods which have since been condemned by the Bassiouni Report. My view [was] that to have returned at that time would have blighted F1 with the insinuation that it simply does not care about whatever is done in order for one of its motor races to take place, which I know is false."

But that was then, so what changed in 12 months? Having spoken out last year - thereby entering the debate - he was invited by Todt, whom he praised for openness, to accompany him on the fact-finder.

"This [invitation] was unprecedented in my experience," adds Hill. "To be offered the chance to see due diligence being done as an independent observer. I am not an FIA delegate. So I thought I must accept, and see for myself. I paid for my own flights, but the hotel was covered. The visit was brief. We were there for two days, but we were in meetings virtually the whole time.'

He firmly believes his visit provided a "fuller view", but concedes it was probably slightly obscured by "the need to protect". According to Hill they were granted pretty much free reign, and that Todt was extremely thorough. "I think he is not naive and could tell if he was being sold an over-embellished story."

Sakhir has hosted a grand prix since 2003 © sutton-images.com

During the visit they met (Law) Professor Bassiouni, the German, French and British Ambassadors, businessmen from both sides of the political divide, circuit employees, and doctors and staff at Salmaniya Hospital. Plus, of course, they met with the Crown Prince, viewed as a reformer, and the prime mover behind the grand prix.

Hill stresses that the final decision is not his to make, with his comments being a personal view upon which he did not make public until questioned by a reporter. That said, he "supports the decision already taken by the FIA to put Bahrain back on the calendar, naturally, in the hope that everything will be OK to return".

Hill's visit occurred, of course, before the anniversary, so, given the documented unrest at the time of his responses to this column (on February 14), does he regret backing the 2012 race?

He adds: "Do I regret opening my big fat mouth...again? The answer is 'no'! I think I'm entitled to express my [opinion]. At least I had taken the trouble to visit Bahrain before giving one! Nobody is suggesting everything is perfect in Bahrain, but there is a process in place."

Hill's views reflect paddock opinion: team members asked in Jerez were unanimous in their trust that the FIA and Ecclestone would take the right decisions.

Ecclestone clearly plans to go ahead: "We are planning to go. I've always said that if there was going to be any drama it would be on the Day of Rage," he told The Telegraph. "We've always been non-political," he added. "Any decision will be made on grounds of safety."

That said, not he, not the FIA, nor any of the 12 team bosses, not even the Crown Prince himself, or any number of The Times letter writers can predict what will happen between February 14 and April 22. Full-blooded democracy could hit the island; anarchy could sweep across its desert sands; status quo could remain. Thus, with nine weeks left F1 is unable to plan conclusively, in a repeat of last year.

However, the current situation differs considerable from 2011. After the Day of Rage the teams had a fortnight to get cars and kit to Bahrain for the final official test and race, from where the cargo was scheduled to be flown to Melbourne and directly onto Malaysia - with there being no guarantee that the freight would be released if the protests deteriorated.

Bahrain's sovereign fund has a shareholding in McLaren plus other interests © LAT

Thus, political and human considerations aside, postponement was the only prudent call, for not one, but three races and a vital test session hung in the balance - plus, of course, the FIA/FOM/FOTA triumvirate tacitly indicated they would do everything in their considerable powers to reschedule the race.

Forget not that Ecclestone had around 25 million reasons to do so, while the WMSC includes a powerful Bahraini vice-president - plus, of course FOTA chairman Martin Whitmarsh's McLaren team has substantial Mumtalakat (the country's sovereign fund) shareholding, extending to both its race and automotive operations. Add in that Sir Jackie Stewart is a close acquaintance of Bahrain's Crown Prince, that ART Grand Prix, a GP2 team jointly controlled by Todt's son Nicolas, is 23 per cent Mumtalakat owned, and it is clear BIC - Mumtalakat-owned - calls on extremely powerful allies.

No wonder, then, that the race was included on this year's calendar. However, the burning issue (no pun intended) is whether it will go ahead. Three choices face F1: cancel it once again in the face of mounting pressure; replace the race with a reinstated Turkish round before that option disappears; sweat it out until the last possible moment.

Ecclestone and co will argue that the first avenue is not on, simply as the situation will (hopefully) change for the better within the next eight weeks. Unlikely, but they, not public pressure, hold the whip hand...

The Turkish bath, long propagated by this column, is unlikely to come to pass, simply as that race has hardly been a profit-spinner for CVC and Bernie, who, not coincidentally, owns the rights to the Turkish race - while the government is literally begging for F1's return.

However, this option cannot be excluded, being eminently doable according to trusted team sources, subject only to a decision being taken before freight heads for Melbourne, or insurmountable logistics problems would arise as the event would be last in a four-leg journey.

Istanbul is an unlikely alternative if the Sakhir race is cancelled © LAT

Which leaves the final option, namely delay the decision until the last possible moment. A team principal in the loop admitted at Jerez that this was the most likely option - being, after all, totally in keeping with F1's preferred modus operandi, namely delay vital decisions until zero alternatives.

So, when would the last possible moment be? Immediately after the Chinese Grand Prix, prior to freight being shipped to Bahrain? Shrugged shoulders: "Maybe, why not?"

Is such a late decision feasible though? "Absolutely," confided a team manager. "Consider the calendar and freight flow. After Bahrain we are scheduled to go to Spain three weeks later and with the Mugello test in between. Should the race be cancelled on (Shanghai) Sunday, the FOM charter simply heads for Europe instead of the Middle East. No problem."

F1 personnel? "Most of them are flying from China to the Middle East, with onward connections after Bahrain to their bases. We would reschedule directly to Europe via the same routing." Unsaid is that F1 learned an awful lot about such issues from Iceland's E-19 volcano drama - trust it to find a silver lining in an ash cloud...

Costs are no issue either - not that Bernie ever had sleepless nights over costs incurred by third parties in his pursuit of profit - for BIC will likely honour the hosting contract, of which the teams, of course, get to share half, meaning they profit, for they would have the bucks without the race expenses. Time-wise they score, too, having four weeks between China and Spain, with a four-day test scheduled conveniently towards the end of the period.

Thus, option three is the mostly likely solution to the prickly Bahrain issue, one most teams are working towards...and once again F1 is seen to be used for political purposes, whether its players admit it or not.