Motorsport Australia chief defends “elite talent” Masi after losing F1 race director role

64 comments on “Motorsport Australia chief defends “elite talent” Masi after losing F1 race director role”

1. 

   OOliver
   22nd February 2022, 0:10

   “There would be other people that would be completely paralysed in exactly the same circumstances. He made the call. That is the first character trait of a strong leader.”

   ..or hypnotised like he was.
   1. 

      Craig
      22nd February 2022, 8:09

      That’s one of the strangest attempts to defend Masi I’ve seen. He’s not a “leader”, he’s a race director whose job is to run the race within the rules for all competitors. He’s not there to make stuff up as he goes along for the ‘spectacle’ and if he’s not sure in a certain situation then he refers to the rule book.
      1. 

         erikje
         22nd February 2022, 15:44

         He is there to lead and to nake though decisions when needed.
         Exactly that is what he did. And all in the spirit of racing.
         Great work, but they needed a scapegoat for a very bad fia year.
         1. 

            paulguitar (@paulguitar)
            22nd February 2022, 21:42

            erikje

            “Great work’?

            Masi’s disgraceful performance in Abu Dhabi will be a cloud over F1 for as long as cars are raced
2. 

   David BR (@david-br)
   22nd February 2022, 0:11

   “He’s just an elite talent that would be wasted to the sport if he’s not used in some capacity, and so we’ll keep an open mind.”

   Something about that sentence, starts out stratospheric in its praise, ends up, well, maybe if the drains need fixing, we’ll give him a call…
   1. 

      Todfod (@todfod)
      22nd February 2022, 10:24

      Maybe he’s an elite talent by Australian motorsport standards. The same way Chandhok was an elite talent by Indian motorsport standards.
      1. 

         Trayambak Chakravarty (@major-dev)
         22nd February 2022, 11:49

         In those days Chandhok was the only talent by Indian motorsport standards.
         1. 

            Todfod (@todfod)
            22nd February 2022, 12:40

            There was Karthikeyan waiting to make a comeback that would take the world by storm in 2011
3. 

   Bwap
   22nd February 2022, 0:15

   Masi’s call did remind me of what V8 Supercars strives for: late race uncertainty & surprise results designed to keep viewers from switching during a long Sunday afternoon. No wonder Arocca would like him back, he’s still got what they want.
4. 

   RandomMallard
   22nd February 2022, 0:21

   I’ve read the whole Speedcafe interview and he raises some good points. Obviously Masi hasn’t publicly spoken about the whole thing, for better or for worse, so this kind of “heard from text messages” is likely the best we’ll get for a while. And I agree with one of the things Arocca said: I would not want to be in that position. I don’t think I would have been able to cope with everything going on. Additionally, while I think reasonable criticism absolutely can be directed as Masi, there’s absolutely no need or place for harassment or harassing criticism. I still think replacing him was probably a good move in the end, and I wonder if he’ll end up back in Supercars (which is itself a great championship and always an entertaining watch – would highly recommend to any motorsport fan)

   That motorhome tour is really interesting (and also slightly infuriating – that TV is enormous!)

   CotD is an interesting point. I can definitely remember what 2 hours felt like as a child, and can agree a full grand prix could be considered a bit long for young children. Agree with the idea of trying to separate it from the main championship though.

   And finally, a big welcome go Claire and Alto. Excited to see what content can come out of this over the next few weeks and months (having read some of Alto’s early articles already I’m blown away!). Best of luck to everyone at Racefans.
   1. 

      drmouse (@drmouse)
      22nd February 2022, 8:55

      I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that they wouldn’t have wanted to be in Masi’s shoes in AD, and many would have been paralysed by the pressure of the decision.

      As for the sprints, I think decoupling them from the championship is a terrible idea. If they aren’t linked to the championship somehow, nobody is going to put any effort into them. They need to have a reasonable effect on the championship or they need to go.

      Note: full disclosure, I don’t think the sprints worked well last year, but I’m not dead set against them as many on here are. I thought the effect they had on the race weekend was fantastic, making practice more enjoyable to watch and bringing more excitement by giving teams less time to get set up before parc ferme. The main thing which let it down, to me, was the sprint itself, with few drivers willing to risk anything in spite of the logical inconsistency in that decision. I’m hoping that this year, with more points and cars which should be better at following and overtaking, they may be better.
      1. 

         RandomMallard
         22nd February 2022, 12:05

         I have a very similar opinion on Sprints to you it seems. The format isn’t necessarily dead or an awful idea imo, but it is implemented poorly and I don’t like it having an effect on the championship.
5. 

   Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
   22nd February 2022, 0:57

   Masi had a hard act to follow, then he behaved as though the last guy was a novice. I have little sympathy for Mr Massi.
   Welcome Claire, and let’s all hope for as entertaining a season as the last one ;)
6. 

   Forrest Gump (@forrestgump)
   22nd February 2022, 1:33

   “This is a motor-race” masi
   1. 

      S
      22nd February 2022, 5:40

      Certain F1 teams and ‘fans’ don’t want a motor race though, apparently….
      1. 

         Craig
         22nd February 2022, 8:11

         No, certain ‘fans’ want to see the race rigged so the person who won on merit lost at the last second because they don’t like him. They then have the audacity to call such a farce a motor race.
         1. 

            S
            22nd February 2022, 10:28

            Who wants to see it rigged, Craig?

            Creating a scenario where the competitors race it out amongst themselves is hardly a farce.
            Ending unnecessarily under SC would have been a farce, though.
      2. 

         Jere (@jerejj)
         22nd February 2022, 8:13

         @S They only want racing that doesn’t sacrifice sporting integrity, which is more than reasonable.
         1. 

            S
            22nd February 2022, 10:35

            F1 have always applied their rules in strange, mysterious and inconsistent ways, @jerejj. They were completely true to form, as far as I could see.
            Remind me how those track limits went at Bahrain (and everywhere else) again….
            The rule book says one thing, but that’s not what they apply. They interpret it differently at each event.
            They do the same re-interpretation once with the SC ending (after agreement in principle with the teams) and a bunch of people wet themselves.

            Motorsports are not the place for unwavering rule-book abiding or consistent application. Everything’s interpretive and reactive.
            That’s the reality we just have to put up with.
            1. 

               drmouse (@drmouse)
               22nd February 2022, 10:53

               They do the same re-interpretation once with the SC ending (after agreement in principle with the teams) and a bunch of people wet themselves.

               Because:
               1) Track limits has been an ongoing issue for decades in F1, whereas safety car procedures have always been followed in a pretty consistent manner.
               2) This “re-interpretation” went against what Masi himself had said he was allowed to do.
               3) This new “interpretation” had never been seen before, and to all intents and purposes handed victory to Max in the championship-deciding finale.
               4) There was a perfectly valid way, following the written procedures and established precedents, to honour the “agreement in principle with the teams”.

               TL;DR: This was completely different, and if you are honest with yourself I’m pretty sure you already know that.
            2. 

               S
               22nd February 2022, 11:34

               1) Track limits has been an ongoing issue for decades in F1, whereas safety car procedures have always been followed in a pretty consistent manner.

               So if they played with the SC rule interpretations every time for decades, would that make it OK too, drmouse?
               Acceptance comes through repetition, even though it’s still subjectively ‘wrong?’

               2) This “re-interpretation” went against what Masi himself had said he was allowed to do.

               The previous year…. Before last season’s agreements and interpretations were put in place. You know that the FIA goes through this dance every season with the rules – they’ve been doing it for decades.

               3) This new “interpretation” had never been seen before, and to all intents and purposes handed victory to Max in the championship-deciding finale.

               Every precedent requires a first implementation. Repetition makes it become its own precedent. Not that precedents really matter in F1 – for every precedent there are multiple exceptions.
               And no – it created a situation where they could race fairly and equally with each other on the track. Red Bull won and Mercedes lost because of their respective strategy choices and the lucky/unlucky timing of an unrelated incident on the track, not because of anything Race Control did. Mercedes could (and probably would) have still lost even without at least some of the ‘unprecedented change in procedure.’

               4) There was a perfectly valid way, following the written procedures and established precedents, to honour the “agreement in principle with the teams”.

               Yeah, maybe. But that’s not what the FIA’s own senior staff chose to do, and they are the ones who get to choose.
               Do you demand that your boss gets the sack when he gives you a different task that you’ve never done before?
               He’s the boss, he runs the show. Respect his authority, even if you don’t agree with his decision.
            3. 

               drmouse (@drmouse)
               22nd February 2022, 17:36

               Every precedent requires a first implementation.

               Doing so in a championship-deciding finale is misguided at best. It makes it look like the results are being manipulated, whether they are or not. Had positions been reversed and he had pulled a move never before seen in the history of F1 in a way which completely changed the odds, you can bet there would be just as much of a stink being kicked up in the opposite direction (Likely more, as Merc dropped the appeal because the only realistic result of it being being upheld was voiding the entire race, which would have left Verstappen WDC anyway… Applied the other way, there would have been a real reason to continue the appeal for RBR).

               And no – it created a situation where they could race fairly and equally with each other on the track.

               We’re going to go around in circles again, but whether this statement is true or not, it still handed the championship to Max on a silver platter. There was practically no chance of Lewis being able to hold off a charging Verstappen on brand new tyres for entire lap when he was starting directly behind him like that, and that situation only came about because Masi threw in, at best, a brand new, never before seen “interpretation of the rules”. Without that brand new “interpretation”, there would either have been a SC finish (unlikely given the pre race agreements to avoid it) or there would have been lapped cars between the two (something which followed the written procedures and had precedent).

               Do you demand that your boss gets the sack when he gives you a different task that you’ve never done before?

               No, but that isn’t analogous. This is the boss, at the end of the year, suddenly deciding to allocate the final month’s sales in a completely different way to ever before and, in doing so, costing me a massive part of my commission and/or bonus. In that case, I would be rightfully miffed, and would strenuously complain about it. I certainly wouldn’t just sit back and say “well, that’s the luck of the draw” or “I made a mistake in my strategy”. The results would look to have been manipulated to reduce my commission/bonus, and whether that was the case or not, it would be unethical and wrong.

               He’s the boss, he runs the show. Respect his authority, even if you don’t agree with his decision.

               Past tense, darling. He was the boss, he ran the show. He abused his authority and, in doing so, lost all my respect. While he leaving isn’t a magic bullet to fix the issues in F1 (I won’t call it a sport again until I see the rules corrected to stop this kind of travesty occurring again) and I do have some sympathy with him over the circumstances, he screwed up massively in a way which left little room for any other decision.
            4. 

               S
               23rd February 2022, 1:23

               Doing so in a championship-deciding finale is misguided at best.

               All races on the calendar carry equal value in the championship. It doesn’t matter when it happens.

               but whether this statement is true or not, it still handed the championship to Max on a silver platter.

               But it didn’t, @drmouse. Verstappen had to overtake Hamilton. No guarantees.
               Hamilton could have pitted, but didn’t. Mercedes made their choice, Red Bull made theirs, and the two drivers decided the result on the track.
               Lapped cars or not, Mercedes’ strategy was wrong. Blue flags make lapped cars practically non-existent so close to the end of the race – especially on a restart.

               I certainly wouldn’t just sit back and say “well, that’s the luck of the draw” or “I made a mistake in my strategy”.

               Why not? If your own strategic decision (or gamble) contributed to the final outcome and your own loss, why do you think you be relieved of liability for it?
               Take responsibility for your own part in it, since you are demanding that ‘your boss’ take responsibility for his.

               Past tense, darling. He was the boss, he ran the show. He abused his authority and, in doing so, lost all my respect.

               Darling? Condescending, much?
               I don’t think Masi is crying about losing your respect. I don’t think he cares much at all about what the purists were thinking at the end of the final GP last year. He did his job within the conditions and circumstances he was placed in. Sacking him doesn’t solve the reason for the creation of those conditions – but those will remain.
               I hope you’re praying the the FIA’s new ‘solution’ doesn’t actually make it worse, because it has every possibility of doing so.

               Anyway – if you don’t like your boss, why wouldn’t you just leave and find somewhere better to spend your life and earn a quid?
               There are plenty of other opportunities out there. Life’s too short to stress about such unimportant things.
               Leaving will give him the message – especially if others go with you.
            5. 

               AussieFan
               23rd February 2022, 2:16

               Hope I am replying in the right place, first time commenting.

               There is one thing that gets me about all of this. Why is Mercs strategy call the reason Lewis lost, yet RB’s strategy call was the reason Max was behind the backmarkers.

               It seems to what really happened here is that RB outsmarted themselves, the SC stayed out longer than they expected, so they desperately needed Masi to come and dig them out of the hole, which he did.

               In short, why did Masi reward RB’s strategy call that turned out to be a dud rather than Mercs? That is the key question that needs/needed to be answered.
            6. 

               S
               23rd February 2022, 10:09

               Hope I am replying in the right place, first time commenting.

               Welcome to the nuthouse, AussieFan.

               In short, why did Masi reward RB’s strategy call that turned out to be a dud rather than Mercs? That is the key question that needs/needed to be answered.

               Okay – two parts here.
               Red Bull’s strategy: Their strategy earlier in the day was to pit for fresh tyres when the opportunity arose – that gave them fresher rubber than Hamilton, but it showed they were still slower.
               When Latifi crashed near the end, they knew the only chance they had to win was to do the opposite of Hamilton.
               This strategy has played out several times in F1 in the past, and dozens, maybe hundreds of times in other series. If you can’t be faster, do something different.

               Masi’s call: The Race Director’s call was 100% about finishing the race (and the season) under competitive conditions.
               The decision to restart the race in the manner they did is completely separate to what the teams said and what the race results happened to be. I’d suggest it was even separate to the actual teams who were involved – as it would likely still have happened if it was (for example) a McLaren and an Alpine. An exciting, competitive racing finish was the primary goal of this officially unpublished agreement between the FIA, the teams and the Commercial Rights Holder, to preferentially finish races under green whenever possible.
               It was deemed to be possible.

               If you believe that Masi’s SC ending decision was based around what the teams were doing, then you must also believe that the FIA are completely untrustworthy – biased and crooked even – and have gifted Verstappen the WDC in whichever way they could.
               Obviously, the evidence from this one event and all the others throughout the season completely disproves this idea, though.
            7. 

               drmouse (@drmouse)
               23rd February 2022, 11:08

               It seems to what really happened here is that RB outsmarted themselves, the SC stayed out longer than they expected, so they desperately needed Masi to come and dig them out of the hole, which he did.

               I hadn’t thought about it this way, but it’s true, you can turn the “bad strategy call” argument on its head. Both made decisions, both of those decisions had risks involved. RBR put multiple (2?) additional backmarkers between MV and LH. The SC went on longer than they’d hoped for, so they begged Masi to make up something new to nullify their “bad strategy call”.
7. 

   Aussie Rod (@aussierod)
   22nd February 2022, 1:36

   F1 is one of the most ruthless sports in the world, where teams of literally hundreds of incredibly intelligent people work tirelessly to gain every advantage they can find from even the smallest amount of ‘grey’ in the rule books.

   Then there are the drivers, programmed from childhood to exploit every opportunity a given circuit or situation presents to find time, gain or hold positions.

   And of the course the big personalities, the egos, the owners, the corporations and the politics and all the various agendas they drive.

   And the fact the sport is so complex, so technical, constantly changing and continually on the move from country to country.

   Throw all the criticism you want at Masi (who also had to deal with covid) but I think it would be wise to give the new stewards a year or two in the seat before you judge, sentence and execute. It’s a thankless job with no ‘please everyone’ solutions that I dare say the new race directors will find out soon enough…
   1. 

      S
      22nd February 2022, 5:39

      Masi… also had to deal with covid

      A massively undervalued aspect of the whole F1 saga over the last 2 years, @aussierod…
      F1 was bleeding money, and made no bones about wanting to restore and grow their finances. Why the increasing focus on entertainment more of late? Look no further….
      In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter to the FIA if the commercial side of F1 was in strife, but this is not the perfect world. Far from it.

      With the media and certain elements of the fanbase continuously pouring fuel on the end-of-season fire, F1 and the FIA inevitably want to restore their image.
      And with F1 becoming ever closer to football in behaviour, what better way to ‘fix the team’ than to sack the coach, eh? Sacking people always works out great….

      Likewise, I expect next year to be at least as much of a shambles, because regardless of who is Race Director, F1 attitudes remain the same.
8. 

   Jim from US (@jimfromus)
   22nd February 2022, 3:05

   Masi deserves all the criticism he received. He made the correct restart decisions in prior races and explained what the rules require for a restart for those races. The WDC isn’t a race. The WDC is the conclusion after all of the races in a season are run. The last race must be run using the same rules as the first race and all of the races in between.
   1. 

      OOliver
      22nd February 2022, 6:53

      I wonder why many refuse to accept this very clear and unbiased view. This has nothing to do with any driver or team affiliation. You don’t go to a boxing match and the referee counts to 10 or 20 depending on who gets knocked down.
      1. 

         MichaelN
         22nd February 2022, 13:47

         One of the reasons one might disagree, or offer some nuance, is that one of the overriding principles F1 has upheld in those previous races, and indeed years, was “let them race”. All teams and drivers were on board with this. It’s why we got the silly Baku 2 lap race, and have had to put up with lap 1 collisions and shortcut-shenanigans, as well as the awful driving standards in which running people off has become commonplace.

         There was no reason to keep the safety car until the end of the Abu Dhabi race. Indeed, if Masi hadn’t bungled the initial call not to let drivers through (mocked by various drivers, as can be heard on the radio highlights video) but instead promptly ordered them to do so, we might have seen 2 or even 3 laps of racing before the finish.
         1. 

            Wooky
            22nd February 2022, 16:08

            “There was no reason to keep the safety car until the end of the Abu Dhabi race.” There was. The rulebook. Lapped cars can only go through if there are no marshalls on the track. That only happened in the penultimate lap. There was no time for a last lap race according to the rules.
   2. 

      @HoHum (@hohum)
      22nd February 2022, 6:54

      Exactly, all he had to do was implement the rules, for that he could not be criticised. Mercedes-AMG followed a race strategy based on the rules, they lost the drivers title because the rules were changed after the lead car committed to stay out and the 2nd car changed to fresh tyres. Had MB known how the rules would be changed they would have changed their strategy.
      1. 

         drmouse (@drmouse)
         22nd February 2022, 9:58

         Had MB known how the rules would be changed they would have changed their strategy.

         I don’t think they necessarily would have done any different had the rules been different. They were in a no-win situation, where every option was a bad one. Had they pitted, they would have lost track position, which would have thrown away the championship in the case of ending under SC, and would have required an on-track pass without massive performance difference against Max, an aggressive driver with nothing to lose, to win on restart. With not pitting, they would lose if the race restarted with lapped runners removed. None of the options open to them were even remotely good for them, and had the correct procedures been followed leading to what we saw it would have been just incredibly bad luck.
         1. 

            Esploratore (@esploratore1)
            22nd February 2022, 10:26

            Only with hindsight they could’ve made the right decision to box at the VSC period, which would give them a better chance in the end.
            1. 

               drmouse (@drmouse)
               22nd February 2022, 11:00

               Maybe, but that’s only with hindsight. Had the race run green to the end after the VSC (which was the most likely option), that would have been taking a massive risk for little benefit, and even that wouldn’t have fully protected them in this kind of situation. There was still every chance the positions would have been about the same when Latifi crashed, giving Max a free pitstop for new softs and, therefore, still giving him a large tyre advantage on the restart. Unfortunately that’s just how things go sometimes.

               Of course, none of this excuses the race director throwing away all established precedent and written procedure in the title-deciding finale to make up something brand new which hands the title to one competitor on a silver platter.
            2. 

               S
               22nd February 2022, 11:06

               Only with hindsight

               “Be on the right tyres at the right time” has been the mantra in motorsport for many decades. Mercedes weren’t. Twice – they had both car speed AND track position on their side the first time, but not at the end.
               Gambling that an incident takes so long to clean up that you either get a free pass with the SC or a free set of tyres during a red flag is just that – gambling.
               The only hindsight Mercedes needed was to remember that they agreed that races would preferentially finish under green.
            3. 

               Roman
               22nd February 2022, 11:53

               @S preferably finish under green, as long as rules allow it. Gambling is part of the game, braking the rules is not.
            4. 

               S
               22nd February 2022, 14:10

               According to the FIA (who make and apply F1’s rules) – the rules did allow it, Roman.
               If they didn’t, the initial protests by Mercedes would have been successful, as would the 3rd one later on.
            5. 

               Wooky
               22nd February 2022, 16:09

               “Gambling that an incident takes so long to clean up that you either get a free pass with the SC or a free set of tyres during a red flag is just that – gambling.” Mercedes gambled right, only to Masi break the rules.
            6. 

               S
               23rd February 2022, 1:27

               Mercedes/Hamilton lost, didn’t they Wooky? How was their gamble right?
               Or are you inferring that Masi was determined to force the WDC outcome in Verstappen’s favour?
               If you are, then there’s no point continuing.
      2. 

         Matthijs (@matthijs)
         22nd February 2022, 16:12

         @hohum Before we criticise Masi, we must know WHY he didn’t follow the rules. I think a very plausible explanation would be that ‘involved people’ (FIA, teams, marshalls etc) discussed before the race that a finish behind the safety car would be an very anticlimatic end to a spectacular year and that it should be avoided at all costs. And here he was in that very scenario, no matter what decision he made, he would disobey a rule or an agreement. Red flagging the race was also an option, but then again he would brake the regulations for red flagging the race (there was no damage to the wall).

         I am not saying that this is actually what happened, but I can imagine that Masi was pressurised not to end the championship behind the safety car. And in all fairness, everyone of us would have wanted that scenario to be avoided beforehand.
         1. 

            drmouse (@drmouse)
            22nd February 2022, 17:40

            no matter what decision he made, he would disobey a rule or an agreement

            Not so. This is the misdirection Red Bull and their supporters keep throwing around, but there was a decision which could be made which would be within the written rules and procedures and would satisfy the unofficial agreements. It’s the decision that he had made before Red Bull piled the pressure on to ignore the rules and give them “one more lap”: Leave lapped cars in place and restart at the end of the penultimate lap.
         2. 

            Roman
            22nd February 2022, 19:24

            In all fairness, if choosing between a manipulated WDC and the race ending under SC, I would have wanted the race to end under SC. No matter who would have won.
9. 

   Cobray (@)
   22nd February 2022, 5:48

   Bad unfair Masi was just a scapegoat for Liberty/FIA decisions that were meant to produce close racing.

   It happened in many, many races this season and it wasn’t all clean and fair except the last lap in Abu Dhabi, as British and Mercedes’s media want to push the disgustingly fake narrative of “robbed” Hamilton.

   Nor Masi was worse than Charlie “the Mercedes helper” Whiting (Mexico 2016 haunts me to this day).

   Being someone who was prone to be influenced from higher up, however, we are better off without him.
10. 

    Red Andy (@red-andy)
    22nd February 2022, 6:46

    Welcome Claire, and good to see the site continue to grow.
    1. 

       BasCB (@bascb)
       22nd February 2022, 13:14

       Yup, good to see the growth. I have already been enjoying those tech articles from Alto, and I am now looking forward to Claire’s contributions as well as the others on the team.
11. 

    AMG44 (@amg44)
    22nd February 2022, 7:00

    No Gardening Holidays for Otmar?
    1. 

       Jere (@jerejj)
       22nd February 2022, 8:15

       Apparently.
       1. 

          Jere (@jerejj)
          22nd February 2022, 8:15

          @amg44 I forgot tagging.
12. 

    Jere (@jerejj)
    22nd February 2022, 8:27

    I see where Arocca is coming from, but my sentiments towards Masi are predominantly aligned with others above.

    So only marginal differences in Friday & Saturday timings from others & initial ones.
    Definitely more marginal than last season, albeit half past hour is unsurprisingly still the norm for Sprints.

    Gasly has got himself a simulator in his official residence.
    The steering wheel display is stuck showing reverse, though.

    Re COTD: Thinking about myself in the distant past, 2h itself didn’t necessarily feel long, but individual portions in some 2h films did + a 20-25 min long thing also felt longer at the time than when I rewatched at a later point.
13. 

    Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
    22nd February 2022, 9:44

    Disagree with the CoTD. When I was allowed to watch a 2 hour race at age 8, I was rivetted the entire time. It felt like 5 minutes. Parents wouldn’t permit me to attend 12 or 24 endurance races, unfortunately.

    What bothers me most about this ‘childish’ support is it could give Liberty a new slogan:

    Sprint Races: Think of the children!

    Liberty was only thinking of the $200M sponsorship deal from a crypto scam company. Why couldn’t they just admit that it was, as ever, all about the money.

    If we F1 fans offered Liberty $300M a season to not have Sprint Races, there’d be none. Maybe Bernie would lend us a few million quid to prove the theory. ;-)
    1. 

       S
       22nd February 2022, 10:38

       Why couldn’t they just admit that it was, as ever, all about the money.

       What difference would it make if they did, @jimmi-cynic?
       We all know the truth anyway.
    2. 

       BasCB (@bascb)
       22nd February 2022, 13:12

       That seems to me to be a far more balanced and fair view on the sprint thing than the one offered in the CotD, @jimmi-cynic
    3. 

       Robbie (@robbie)
       22nd February 2022, 17:46

       @jimmi-cynic “If we F1 fans offered Liberty $300M a season to not have Sprint Races, there’d be none.” What cynical nonsense.

       Firstly, F1 is not the first, nor will be the last business entity that tries to grow itself and maximize profits. It is what keeps them doing what they love to do. It is what employs people. It is what is maximizing things for their shareholders too. Corporations wanting to make money are not sinners. To say it is all only about money is ridiculous.

       Secondly, F1 is trying to expand itself and it’s audience and it’s sponsors and potentially the size of the grid itself, by making F1 more exciting and enthralling. The Sprints are only a small part of it with the real meaty stuff having been accomplished with these new cars, the budget caps, and the better money distribution. Sure F1 wants to make money, and I’m sure Sprints are just one component in them hoping to make far far more than just the straight $300 mill you think it would take to back them off of having Sprints. And you know what? It’s ok for companies to want to make money and grow and make even more. It’s how they employ people.
14. 

    cduk_mugello (@cduk_mugello)
    22nd February 2022, 10:35

    Glad to see more new talent arrive here, onwards and upwards I hope!
15. 

    DanielH (@danielh)
    22nd February 2022, 11:06

    I’m really surprised to see such a lo-tech solution for applying the stickers! I assumed they’d be part of the paint on the chassis itself rather than stuck on afterwards.
16. 

    andrewf1 (@andrewf1)
    22nd February 2022, 11:10

    Michael “understood, Jonathan” Masi made the call indeed. Then changed it. Then changed it again and broke the rules. Such a strong, competent leader.
17. 

    Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
    22nd February 2022, 13:13

    People seem to forget that the Abu Dhabi GP is one of 22 events that count for the WDC. It happens to be the final race of the season but it’s not the tournament final like the World Cup final, the Champions league final, the Super Bowl… The Mercedes PR machine did a very good job to make it sound like Hamilton was robbed in the final by Masi while in fact he himself has benefited from his inconsistency/incompetence over the course of the season (same goes for Verstappen).

    The funny thing is that Hamilton in Abu Dhabi was allowed into that position by a “freestyle” interpretation of the track limits made by Masi and the stewards in the first lap when he chose to cut the corner, gain the position and then lift off in the final sector where overtaking is nearly impossible in a race where RBR throwed everything at track position in Saturday even sacrificing downforce to contain Hamilton on the straights.

    Now Masi is gone and the new race directors already know that their job is at the mercy of Toto’s mood. Curious to see how they will handle incidents involving the Mercedes drivers and also the reaction of all those asking for justice and claiming that Verstappen isn’t a worthy champion.
18. 

    Wooky
    22nd February 2022, 16:11

    “Mercedes PR machine did a very good job to make it sound like Hamilton was robbed in the final by Masi” Had Masi followed the rules Lewis is 8x world champ. This is the fact.
    1. 

       Esploratore (@esploratore1)
       22nd February 2022, 22:58

       That also includes track limits in bahrain, you know.
19. 

    Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
    23rd February 2022, 1:39

    Ok then, @robbie. Let’s just enjoy the pursuit of money making. Maybe Netflix could create a riveting Investment Banking series, untainted by sport or ethics.

    Sadly, Liberty being a public-traded company, it is ALL about the money. They owe us fans nothing. Their fiduciary duty is to their shareholders. Hence their embrace of races hosted by despotic regimes looking for sport-washing credibility.

    Agree that Liberty needed to recoup their huge overpayment to Bernie/CVC. However, instead of cheezy American marketing gimmicks they could have chosen to make the actual racing better. But that would be harder, take longer and require a real love of F1. It is clear now what their real love is.

    Marketing tricks are so much easier, and in the short-term, quite profitable.
    1. 

       Robbie (@robbie)
       23rd February 2022, 17:18

       @jimmi-cynic “…they could have chosen to make the actual racing better.” Doesn’t get any more cynical than that, so well done there. You are that cynical that you choose to gloss over all that Brawn and the teams have worked towards with the cars, the caps, and the money distribution, because you are blinded by a few Sprint races and Netflix, and that’s a real shame. But hey, you gotta do you.
       1. 

          Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
          23rd February 2022, 22:29

          @robbie – I’m cynical enough to observe Brawn was hired to be a credible mouthpiece for Liberty. Credibility that diminished each time he spoke to defend some hair-brained Liberty proposal. Unless you feel F1 is best served in reverse grids.

          Good to know you think this Liberty Showbiz era is improving the F1 show. Enjoy the Sprints, Netflix docudrama series and Liberty’s riveting quarterly reports.

Comments are closed.