This weekend, Viva F1 has organised the third Blogger's Swap Shop. It is a fantastic idea where 15 motorsports bloggers write for each other's blogs. An entry from me will appear at The Formula 1 & Motorsports Archive today. La Canta Magnifico Blog is honoured to host a guest entry by Maverick of Viva F1 (please ignore the entry by-line as I haven't figured out how to get it to change yet).

Formula One has more than its fair share of rules. There's not even a single rule book - please refer to the International Sporting code, F1 Sporting Regulations and F1 Technical Regulations as well as all the attached appendices while not forgetting the Rules of the FIA International Court of Appeal [and the Concorde Agreement - ed]. Undoubtedly the vaguest of all the rules, and quite deliberately so, is Article 151c which concerns "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally." In other words, ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’.

The ‘disrepute clause’ gives rise to concerns not only about its ill-defined and wide-reaching nature but also about its potential for abuse. So vague is the clause, who is to define what is and what isn't against the interests of the sport? Furthermore, having lost the case, while there is scope to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal how can you possibly argue that it didn't bring the sport into disrepute? It's an immeasurable concept. Taking a case even further, with notable exceptions, the courts are generally reluctant to intervene in the internal disputes of voluntary associations and not inclined to review the decisions of tribunals.

Last month, the FIA scrapped the team orders rule but with the caveat that "any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions". So are team orders banned? Ferrari's decision to manipulate Michael Schumacher past Rubens Barrichello on the last lap of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix induced boos from the watching spectators and widespread condemnation from the media. It ultimately led to the banning of team orders, but how would it be dealt with today? It clearly sounds like a case of bringing the 'sport into into disrepute' but at the time, the WMSC "recognised the long-standing and traditional right of a team to decree the finishing order of its drivers in what it believes to be the best interest of its attempt to win both world championships" and hence took no action. Does tradition trump public opinion?

Moving onto 2010 and Hockenheim and this time it was Felipe Massa who was giving way for Fernando Alonso. The stewards acted by issuing the maximum fine allowed to them but the WMSC chose to not extend the penalty, instead going as far as recommending that the ban on team orders be abolished, which it subsequently was. However, what about bringing the sport into disrepute? There was uproar amongst groups of fans and the media, so was there a case for turning to Article 151c? The trouble is that while large parts of the media were unhappy (the Brazilian castigation of Massa being particularly venomous) it certainly wasn't the case everywhere. The Italian media sided with Ferrari, the Spanish media sided with Alonso and the German media, seemingly conditioned by the Schumacher-years, coolly seemed to think that it was business as usual - which in reality it probably was.

Another example from 2010, which might have resulted in Article 151c being brandished in anger, was Ferrari's and Alonso's claims that the European Grand Prix was fixed. If this was football there would have been repercussions - earlier this week, Liverpool's Ryan Babel picked up a £10,000 fine for retweeting a link to a mocked-up picture of referee Howard Webb in a Manchester United shirt after Liverpool lost 1-0 to their rivals. The stewards may have done a poor job that weekend but for drivers and teams at the centre of it all to suggest bias at the FIA could easily be seen as damaging to Formula One.

On the other hand, others may suggest that it was the actual stewarding that was damaging - which begs the question of whether the FIA themselves should be able to be found guilty of ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’? While many fans have been suggesting that for years, the nearest anyone on the inside has come to suggesting such a thing in recent years is in 2008, when Mark Webber accused Max Mosley of damaging the sport following allegations about his private life.

In the end, the Hockenheim result is forgotten largely thanks to a combination of a close-fought Championship and the fact that Alonso didn't take the title thanks to those points gained in Germany. How might the issue have rumbled on down the years if 'Alonso's title' had been questioned by some? Of course, one whole problem with the question of ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’ is that public exposure is central to the accusation and yet, by simply pursuing an issue, the FIA can generate even more publicity for a case, causing further damage. Yet, does it all really matter?

Formula One thrives on controversy, the politics is as much a part of the drama as the racing - an ongoing soap opera. Admittedly, the politics occasionally takes too much precedence over what is happening on the track (Max Mosley and FOTA's wranglings at the end of his reign being a prime example). Yet has any of it really damaged F1's reputation? Renault were found guilty of manipulating a race but fans never stayed away from the subsequent Singapore Grand Prix. McLaren were found guilty of stealing Ferrari information but Formula One is still seen as a glamorous sport. In short, the concept of the ‘disrepute clause’ seems like a misnomer as far as Formula One is concerned. Perhaps it comes down to that image of glamour - a bit of palace intrigue is expected to be part and parcel of the show?

But then maybe Bernie Ecclestone already knows that - a man who could probably earn himself three or four disrepute charges a year.

Venue Rulebook (2007, Version 1.0) This is the sixth section of the Rainbow Ruleset, and is concerned with the rights and responsibilities connected to holding an F1-grade license, as well as how such a license would be obtained. This rulebook is subordinate to the Constitutional Principles, [url=]Governance[/url], Sporting, Licensing and [url=]Technical[/url] rulebooks. Calender Controls 6a(1).....There shall be between 8 and 20 races in a season. 6a(2).....There shall be two or three weeks between Grands Prix. 6a(3).....No Grands Prix may be held in December or January. 6a(4).....Applications for a venue to be on the calender must be submitted before March 30 of the preceding year, to allow for venue checks and time to iron out any problems quietly. 6a(5).....The calender will be published on June 30 of the year preceding the year of the calender concerned. 6a(6).....Cancellations received after the calender is published will lead to the cancellation of the contract unless the venue can provide a good reason for cancellation. Special Provisions 6a(1).....Should any special provisions be required to make a Formula 1 race or test compatible with national law, that request must be made at the time of submitting the venue's entry to the F1 championship. 6a(2).....It is for the F1 governance, and specifically the Venue sub-committee, to decide whether a special provision can reasonably be accomodated.

Governance Rulebook (2008, Version 1.0)

This is the second book in the Rainbow Ruleset. A sport has to have rules, otherwise it's just an anarchic free-for-all with no winners. To guide and develop F1, wise and reasonable governance is necessary. A rulebook that promotes good governance is required for this reason. Remember that the Constitutional Principles rulebook has a higher priority than these rules, to prevent the governance from losing sight of what Formula 1 is for. Interested Parties 2a(1).....All interested parties must be allowed to help shape the future direction of Formula 1. 2a(2).....Should any new interested parties occur, a method must be found to give them meaningful input into Formula 1. 2a(3).....No priority may be given to one interested party over another, or between a portion of an interested party over another portion, if it is at all avoidable. 2a(4).....The interested parties in Formula 1 are team members, drivers, suppliers, spectators, supporters, marshalls, track officials, track owners, race organisers, sponsors, media and members of the governance. 2a(5).....All prospective members of governance must reveal any other interested party groups they belong to, and again any time the candidate puts themselves forward for another position in the governance. 2a(6).....All members of governance must abstain from influencing any decision that would affect an interested party group they belong to (with the exception of the spectator interest group), including any joined since becoming part of the governance. These rules exist so that the governance knows who is part of Formula 1, treat those groups and treat members of those groups equally. There are also measures to restrict inadvertent bias. Anyone not respecting these rules should be barred from Formula 1 for a period of one year for the first offence, three for the second offence and permananently for the third offence. Appeals to go straight to court. Structure of Governance 2b(1).....Formula 1 shall fundamentally be a democracy, on a "One person, one vote" system, and the leader getting the casting vote where necessary. 2b(2).....There shall be a three-person lead group, responsible for overseeing Constitutional Principles and Governance, and one sub-committee of five people for each additional rulebook. 2b(3).....No group or individual other than those mentioned in 2b(2) may have any role in governance other than to make recommendations. 2b(4).....Any member of group within the governance is permitted to commission groups to look at any issue they/it feel(s) should be investigated, as long as the formation of the group is mentioned to the governance. 2b(5).....All members of the governance as described in Rule 2b(2) must be elected after a regular interval of no more than five years by the general public using means accessible to the majority of the general public. 2b(6).....Nobody is permitted to serve consecutive terms in the governance, and at least 24 calender months must seperate any two periods a member of the governance serves in the governance structure. 2b(7).....No sub-committee as given in rule 2b(2) may contain more than one person from each interested group as defined in rule 2a(4). 2b(8 ).....All sub-committees are equal to each other, but subordinate to the three-person lead group. 2b(9).....The lead group must submit any changes it wishes to make to Constitutional Principles or Governance Rulebooks to the entire governance structure, with a 2/3 majority necessary to effect change. It is forbidden from becoming involved with the decision-making of any of its sub-committees. 2b(10).....Each sub-committee is authorised to make changes to the rulebook it is responsible for, and only that rulebook. A majority vote is needed to effect change. The structure of the governance is designed to spread out power among the interested groups, to ensure a spread of skills in the governance and to delineate the powers each part of the governance has. The restrictions on terms is to avoid power-grabbing and to allow lessons from each term in governance to sink in. Any decisions made by a structure not in compliance with this structure is automatically invalid. Any individual involved in a breach of this Rule may be summarily dismissed from the post, triggering an immediate by-election. Attempts to enforce said rules, or a governance remaining in breach of this rule for more than 2 months, should be referred to the court of the juristiction cited in the Constitutional Principles. The Lead Group 2c(1).....The three positions in the lead group are the President, the Deputy President and the Trainee. 2c(2).....The President's main role is to provide the long-range vision for F1 in accordance with the Constitutional Principles. 2c(3).....The Vice-President's main role is to oversee the sub-committees and ensure that the day-to-day governance structure is working. 2c(4).....The Trainee's main role is to assist the President and Vice-President in the execution of their finctions, with a view to learning how the politics of F1 work. 2c(5).....The Lead Group will meet at least every three months. By defining the roles of the Lead Group, the members of that group will be prevented from taking too much power from the sub-committes to which they delegate many powers. If this rule is broken, any edicts deemed to fall outside the scope of the Lead Group may be ignored. Attempts to enforce said rules, or a governance remaining in breach of this rule for more than 2 months, should be referred to the court of the juristiction cited in the Constitutional Principles. The Sub-Committees' duties 2d(1).....The duties of any Sub-Committee must be outlined in this Rule. 2d(2).....Any duty not defined by this rule or by the preceding rules must be done by the Lead Group, or delegated to somebody by the Lead Group in accordance with the rules. 2d(2).....The Sporting Sub-Committee is to discuss and regulate matters concerning the conduct of race weekends and testing. 2d(3).....The Licensing Sub-Committee is to discuss and regulate matters concerning the conditions for obtaining and retaining the licenses needed to participate in F1. 2d(4).....The Technical Sub-Committee is to discuss and regulate matters concerning the safety and performance of the cars. 2d(5).....The Venue Sub-Committee is to discuss and regulate matters concerning the conditions for obtaining and retaining circuits on the calender. 2d(6).....The Commercial Sub-Committee is to discuss and regulate the funding of the above, as well as the media and sponsor presence at circuits. If the Sub-Committees are to avoid treading on each other's toes, they must know what their jobs are. If this rule is broken, the rule(s) generated is/are invalid. Attempts to enforce said rules, or a governance remaining in breach of this rule for more than 2 months, should be referred to the court of the juristiction cited in the Constitutional Principles. Term Lengths 2e(1).....Anyone is allowed to (irreversibly) abort a term early without giving a reason by announcing that term abortion at any meeting of the governance, though it should be noted that rule 2b(6) still applies in this case. 2e(1).....The President's term is for five years. 2e(2).....The Vice-President's term is for three years. 2e(3).....The Trainee's term is for one year. 2e(4).....The two people in each sub-committee with the highest number of votes will have a term of four years. 2e(5).....The three people in each sub-committee with the fewest number of votes will have a term of two years. Limiting term lengths reduces people's complacency in power, especially since they cannot be immediately re-elected. Also, staggering term lengths will ensure that the number of posts in each election is reasonably manageable. Anyone attempting to serve a longer term than stipulated in this rule can be permanently excluded from the governance. Elections 2f(1).....Standard elections will occur in December of every year where at least one post is open, opening on December 1 and ending on December 31. 2f(2).....By-elections begin one week after the post becomes vacant, and will close 31 days after they open. 2f(2).....Anyone may be nominated for any position without nomination. 2f(3).....Whoever gets the most votes for each position will be approached to see if they will accept the position (and to choose which position to take if elected to more than one role). 2f(4).....If the winner of an election refuses the post, the person with the next most votes to have not accepted another post in the governance will be asked, until such time as all the posts are filled. 2f(5).....All votes must have a name, a return contact for that form of communication, and a check for uniqueness. 2f(6).....If there are any queries about the vote (for instance, it is believed that one person is casting multiple votes), then the return form of contact will be used to resolve the query. 2f(6).....Nominations must be accepted by post, phone or Internet (with the restriction that only one vote can be cast per person). 2f(7).....Full election results must be announced and made available two working days after the election closes, with a list of who is taking which post given as soon as it is known who that will be. 2f(8 ).....All terms begin as soon as the post is accepted. Opening the elections out to the general public will get people thinking of places in government to think about the public more. Removing the nomination requirement would allow a broader range of people to be considered. One vote per person is needed to stop people from sending in thousands of votes for one person, and thus getting unequal amounts of power. Prompt election results make it easier to understand what's going on. Any election not run to this system is invalid, as are any decisions made by people elected this way. An immediate re-run will be necessary. Attempts to enforce rules set by improperly-elected people, or a governance remaining in breach of this rule for more than 2 months, should be referred to the court of the juristiction cited in the Constitutional Principles.