First of all, sorry for the long absence. I've had a lengthy spell where everything I've wanted to write has been either live-commenting or small enough to fit in a tweet or two. Neither fits my blogging style. I'll try not to let 10-week absences happen again.

Fury ignited this entry. It's the ongoing situation in Bahrain. Up until now, it's been a matter of ethics and safety whether F1 goes or not. Thanks to the Bahrain organiser's actions, it's become a matter of regulations.

I speak of the "UniF1ed" campaign - something which apparently has been happening for a while but only came to my attention last night.  The organisers of the race may or may not have originated the campaign, but they are enthusiastically participating in it. Little do they appear to realise that they have endangered their race by doing so.

I draw your attention to the tagline "One Nation in Celebration". The pedants among you will deem this false - F1 is a worldwide event so, barring disaster, "Many Nations In Celebration" would be more accurate. The font used for it on the poster is difficult to read, but that's even more nit-picky. The big problem, however, is that it expresses a link between F1 and national unity. 

Linking F1 and national unity probably doesn't seem that big a problem. It may even seem close enough to pro-social and "sport is good" themes to be helpful. I can only assume that was what the organisers thought when they decided to go down that path. Unfortunately for them, Article 1 of the FIA Statutes (PDF), in wording combined with its application and the reason for its existence, indicates otherwise.

Article 1 of the FIA Statutes says, among other things:

"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."

Many thanks to the Midweek Motorsports Listener Collective on Facebook, particularly with regard to finding an ad in the campaign that further demonstrates the link the organisers are making between F1 and politics.

You may be wondering why I am using "linking F1 and politics" as synonymous with the "racial, political and religious discrimination" actually mentioned in Article 1 of the FIA Statutes. This is down to two things: the way Article 1 has been implemented and the reason Article 1 is required to exist.

The most recent use of Article 1  was to convict the Turkish GP organisers (TOSFED) of using the 2006 podium ceremony for political gain. Mehmet Ali Talat presented one of the trophies. This in and of itself wasn't a breach of Article 1. Had he been described as the regional governor of Turkish Cyprus, everything would have been fine (except for possible grumblings within Cyprus and Turkey). However, he was described as the head of state of the Republic of Cyprus, a state not recognised by the UN but is recognised by Turkey. That was deemed a breach of Article 1 of the FIA Statutes and of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code. This was for a one-off incident that was relatively subtle in its political aims and, importantly, did not connote political discrimination, only express a controversial political point. 

Yes, part of the fine was for Article 151c, but a more significant breach of Article 1 would be sufficient for any penalty the FIA has to be levied. The "UniF1ed" campaign is clearly not a casual breach, nor is it a question of tick-boxing. Article 35 b) specifically mentions that any club not acting according to the expectations of the FIA (including by breaking any of the Statutes) can be struck off the roll. That is to say, the entire club and all associated activities can be dissolved. Obviously, this would include the very Grand Prix Bahrain was attempting to protect.

There is nothing in the Statute that requires a political statement to be true or demonstrable in order for it to be usable. Technically speaking, even explicit FIA approval wouldn't work, unless the message was specifically against racial, political or religious discrimination. "UniF1ed" isn't. Instead it is a message suggesting political unity already exists, which doesn't meet the exemption requirement. 

As for why Article 1 of the FIA Statutes exists, it's mandatory for non-political organisations registered in France. This is because anti-discrimination and apolitical approaches are considered key elements in the sorts of groups France allows to be registered with them. If the FIA overlooks a breach of Article 1, it is under serious risk of being sent to the French civil courts and penalised. Dissolution is entirely possible, as is a large fine and (at least partial) loss of its autonomy over judging its own motorsports events.

That would open the door to everything from pitlane speeders to technical flouters to use the civil courts to challenge every single decision the FIA makes. Motorsport would grind to a halt. That assumes a lack of dissolution - that scenario would obviously have a serious deletrious effect on every branch of motorsport, including ones that never in a million years considered going to Bahrain.

Clearly none of this is in any motorsport fan's interest. It certainly doesn't help Bahrain organisers any! 

There is no longer any need to reference political strife or anyone's safety to justify not going to Bahrain. Regulations now demand refusal to race - and refusal to support the race. Many have suggested this be done in the form of a boycott.

Thanks to the combined efforts of Sky (inaccessible, unaffordable and unethical) and BBC Radio (unintelligible in the races), I won't have a choice about watching the race. The most I'd have been able to do was follow it on Twitter. Having already had the difficult bit taken out of my hands, I am quite happy to boycott the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix completely. The powers-that-be have already demonstrated they don't care about viewer figures due to sending the UK live rights to Sky, so I doubt the boycott will achieve anything. 

For that matter, I'm not convinced the situation is safe enough to enable a viable attempt to hold the 2012 Bahrain GP. If inviability makes for a race cancellation on force majuere (which incidentally has to be done by the FIA if there is to be a Bahrain 2013), that would be helpful in the short term.

The breach of Statute would make the validity of copyright use of "F1" within "UniF1ed" questionable too. The licence the organisers have to include F1 in their marketing would surely not include uses in materials breaching the regulations, particularly ones underpinned by law. Some of the cases Bernie has lost on the topic mean there is not sufficient evidence for certainty in either direction. Even so, that wouldn't be Bahrain's biggest likely problem.

Its biggest problem in that scenario is that Bahrain would likely lose the race... ...on account of there being no viable authority to contract the race from in the first place. 

For these reasons, it is wrong to support a race that's being used to support political strife in contravention of Article 1 of the FIA Statutes. As in, it's such a big contravention that, at minimum, the FIA will lose its ability to be the first and final place of judgment for matters involving its own series (everything would have to be made subject to the French civil courts). The French courts are rather sensitive about the whole "no politics" thing for non-political organisations. The moment Bahrain's organisers issued the "UniF1ed" ad campaign, it was in contravention of the regulations. That the FIA has (so far) let that campaign go ahead without comment is contemptible and puts the FIA - and every single series it runs, including those who'd never have gone to Bahrain in a million years - in a very vulnerable position.

It's in F1's and the FIA's interest not to wait for force majuere to come into effect, but to protect themselves by cancelling on the grounds of FIA Statute Article 1 breaches.

Until then... ...I don't see why I should have to applaud or condone the FIA's attempted self-destruction.

This blog entry was prompted by the Formula 1 Blog entry "Vox Certatus: Playing Favourites", which was about favourite teams and drivers and why we thought them so. Initially I took the question at face value, providing a somewhat lengthy response covering Force India, Hill, Fisichella and... ...Montoya. With stating why I disliked the latter, I inadvertantly kicked over a hornet's nest.

When next I visited, I cleared up a small misunderstanding concerning how I'd worded one particular phrase (or so I thought), but then the discussion drifted in a way I hadn't expected. F1 Kitteh asked me:

So you would rather have ‘scripted **’ than ‘verbal abrasiveness’? 

This is the question which I intend to answer here, since the "essay" proved too long for the comments section of Formula 1 Blog.

In my opinion, there are three kinds of verbal abrasiveness. One of them can be a good thing. Another is generally a somewhat bad thing, but can be very bad depending on the particular circumstances. The third one is always very harmful, and unlike the second one it harms everyone, not just the speaker.

To indicate these, here is my personal sliding scale of verbal abrasiveness and scripting, from best to worst:

Situational, justified verbal abrasiveness <- scripting/situational unjustified verbal abrasiveness <- persistent verbal abrasiveness

 
If someone is liable to be sharp-tongued only in specific situations and there appears to be good reason (e.g. they've just had a really stupid steward's decision against them), that would be better than any form of scripting.

An unjustified sharp-tongued incident tends to lead to biologically scripted behaviour, which is about as accurate as behaviour scripted by the powers-that-be (i.e. not very). This is why I rate behavioural and psuedopolitical scripting on the same level. I don't expect those involved to give the explanation for their behaviour as it is frequently obvious in context, but without some reason for being abrasive, one often finds that common sense and logic go out of the window alongside the politeness. I would consider Scott Speed as an example of someone who washed out of F1 partially because there was confusion over whether his situational abrasiveness was justified or not. I thought it was (from what I heard of it) but Franz Tost differed in opinion.

It's the people who are always abrasive, who cannot seem to go five minutes without denigrating someone or pointlessly attacking some slight, who are the least accurate and the most likely to drive me up the wall even reading their words. Most people like that end up putting off their sponsors and mechanics early in the junior formulae and therefore never get seen by the talent scouts, let alone anyone in F1.

Nonetheless, a few do drift into F1. Some people really like such people, possibly because they are so different to those around them or because they can identify better with them. Personally I cannot identify with them at all because I am accustomed to people who have a reasonable (though frequently imperfect) concept of keeping a civil tongue in their heads. People who don't get mad or dismissive at absolutely everything. And it's this which made me dislike Juan Pablo Montoya and Eddie Irvine. However good they may have been as drivers, as people they disappointed me and their ways of talking about others was the primary clue for me to come to this opinion.

(Incidentally, I prefer truthfulness - whether that's Mark Webber's brand of bold statements or Kamui Kobayashi's calmer candour - over any of the above).  

Ultimately, the limitations of particular drivers' attitudes, personalities and methods of thinking have a large influence on their enduring support base. Performance comes and goes but character tends to stay stable - most of the time. Different people tend to resonate with different drivers according to those characters, unless they are the sort of people who support based on performance (be that success or underdog status) or who support more abstract entities such as teams. Even then, teams have group cultures which invoke the general principles discussed here.

Speech is one of several doorways to the revelation of character. It's one of the more accessible ones to the general spectator, especially when spoken in places where journalists have taken the trouble to record the results. Look closely enough and the clues are all there.

Which drivers really think a given way v. those who are claiming it due to conditioning. 

Which drivers really respect - or even like - another v. those who pretend to respect another v. those who have dropped the pretence.

What each driver is hoping for in F1.

Which ones are likely to be around in a strong enough position to achieve those hopes.

Some signals in speech are more obvious indicators of character than others. A habit of persistently abrasive speech is pretty obvious. I just didn't realise it would be so controversial.

Script Frenzy Update:  20 pages of prose, which should become 40 pages of script when formatted. I feel confident about this challenge.