FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has told the organisation’s members he is the target of “malicious” attacks aimed at destabilising him and the governing body.
He believes recent events have “unfolded with one clear objective: to target the very heart of our leadership and undermine the foundation of our federation.”Ben Sulayem made the claim in a letter to FIA members, portions of which were published by the Associated Press.
He said the FIA has “fallen victim to malicious leaks of confidential and sensitive information, tarnishing our reputation and causing concern among our members.”
“Yet, despite these attacks aimed at my character and our organisation as a whole, we have emerged stronger and more resolute than ever,” he added. “We know that the ultimate goal of these reprehensible acts was to target me and to weaken the very essence of the FIA.”
Ben Sulayem was cleared by an FIA Ethics Committee investigation earlier this week of two counts of wrongdoing during last season. The committee investigated claims he had attempted to intervene over a penalty issued to Fernando Alonso at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix and tried to interfere with the certification of the new Las Vegas Strip Circuit.
Within a few hours of the committee’s decision being made public on Wednesday, news broke of a further controversy involving the FIA. F1 Academy CEO Susie Wolff announced she has brought a lawsuit against the federation over its handling of allegations against her and Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, her husband, last year.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
There have also been claims the FIA was told on multiple occasions of allegations against Red Bull team principal Christian Horner. The team’s owners arranged an investigation into Horner, which cleared him, but is now subject to an appeal.
“All the items that have come to light here in recent times are very serious situations,” said McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown in an FIA press conference yesterday. “We’re living in 2024, not 1984, which means total transparency.
“I think the three situations are different but all very serious and I think we need to make sure that things are done in a transparent, truly independent manner. I think everyone should welcome transparency.
“I know everyone would like these various topics to enable us to go back to motor racing, but I think until all the unanswered questions are answered people will continue to ask questions. So I don’t think it’s a great situation that we’re in, that we’re three races into the calendar and we’re still talking about these issues.
“There’s not been the level of transparency and we need to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to speak up.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
However RB team principal Peter Bayer, who was the FIA’s secretary general for sport and F1 executive director between 2017 and 2021, said teams “have to have confidence into the organisation.”
“It’s the same when we have a stewards’ decision or others sometimes. We might not like the decisions but ultimately we have to be happy with the process.
“From my time at the FIA, it is an independent body, which is led by the Ethics Committee president, Francois Bellanger. They have their independent findings. And as the President himself was concerned, they were the ones who had to ultimately deal with the matter.
“So again, I think we need to have confidence. They came out with a statement.
“Another question we have to ask ourselves is, what is actually the remit of the FIA? They are the regulator and legislator of motorsport. So some questions we might want them to answer, probably they cannot answer, whilst others, clearly, they have to answer.
“The ones they have to answer, like a president potentially interfering into a stewards’ decision, that is very, very important for us to have confidence and to trust them. And yes, we do.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Australian Grand Prix
- Alonso calls Australian GP penalty a ‘one-off I’ve had too many of’
- Red Bull saw warning sign of Australian GP brake problem on Saturday – Verstappen
- Failing to punish Alonso would have “opened a can of worms” – Russell
- Leclerc sure “many team principals” are pursuing Sainz for 2025 seat
- “Don’t put me under pressure” – The best unheard team radio from Melbourne
dragoll (@dragoll)
23rd March 2024, 5:04
Pressure is only felt when the gravity of your actions take hold.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2024, 16:11
Indeed.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
23rd March 2024, 18:13
Yep.
Denise Clemente
24th March 2024, 0:23
Well said.
MichaelN
23rd March 2024, 7:52
He’s right, and you can even pinpoint the moment this started: the FIA’s strongly worded caution against selling the commercial rights for upwards of 20 billion dollars, four to five times as much as Liberty paid just a few years earlier. The FIA rightly warned that the potential buyer would seek to recoup that investment in all sorts of ways, many detrimental to F1 and motorsport. This of course happened against a background of the Todt FIA giving away more power to FOM, which is how F1 got these “great” regulations. MBS has always been clear that the regulations should be made by the FIA. There was a slight lull in the anti-FIA and personal attacks on MBS after the unfortunate passing of his son, but it seems the conflict is back on track.
Chris Horton
23rd March 2024, 10:44
A very good point. I’ve really had enough of Liberty.
I was really positive about them initially and was glad to see the back of Ecclestone.
Be careful what you wish for eh.
Mayrton
23rd March 2024, 11:55
I agree with this and I also agree with Ben on the direction FIA should take, which is to nullify the damage Todt has done. This is besides the question whether he should lead the organisation – to me that is irrelevant; the structures need to be set and be clear and promote and grow the sport. Leadership will change over the years anyway. This FOM and Liberty game is getting completely out of hand and before we know it we will be looking at circus.
floodo1 (@floodo1)
23rd March 2024, 16:48
Similar to the war in Ukraine, you have to go back farther than recent news to find how it all started.
SteveP
23rd March 2024, 8:28
No, it did not. Please be accurate.
The grievance was dismissed. That’s what Red Bull released as a statement stating the grievance had been dismissed, no mention of clearing Horner, nor was the word innocent used, other than by Horner.
Very fine lines in the phraseology, but never the less they are there.
Someone, somewhere
23rd March 2024, 11:54
Indeed. I keep seeing it reported (elsewhere) that he was “exonerated”, but the truth is that only those who received the “independent” investigation’s report know what it said.
It could be that it found that the accusations to be false; but we do not know that.
It could be that it found them to be true in part, but exaggerated; but we do not know that.
it could be that it found them to be entirely true; but we do not know that.
All we do know is that Red Bull have chosen to take no further (public anyway) action against Horner, and have suspended his accuser. But without the details of the findings we cannot know if that is Red Bull covering things up, if it is because the accusations were false, or any other rationale.
And I say “independent” because nothing is truly independent when a party involved is funding it.
notagrumpyfan
23rd March 2024, 12:00
When charges/complaints are dismissed then the subject of those charges/complaints is ‘cleared’ of those charges/complaints.
This has been explained various times to you, but you stubbornly continue to post the same nonsense (probably because it doesn’t agree with you beliefs/prejudices).
But, no worries, even fact deniers and stubborn people can live a happy life on a flat earth :P
MichaelN
23rd March 2024, 14:54
The problem is in the ambiguity. A case can be dismissed for any number of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with the substance of the situation. Being ‘cleared’ in the sense that the case ‘was removed’ might have some merit as a description in such cases, although it wouldn’t be ideal, but this is not applicable here since an internal HR complaint is the absolute lowest rung on the ladder, with internal appeals, and civil cases etc. still being very much possible. It’s also generally a poor choice of words because being ‘cleared’ also has the dictionary definition of ‘having been found not to be guilty of doing something wrong’. Which isn’t what happened.
Whether or not the use of the phrase ‘cleared’ is used intentionally, either to be vague or to make it seem like the last word has been said when it hasn’t, or unintentionally because the author has an idea of its intended meaning they assume the audience shares, in both cases it’s not a great choice of words and it doesn’t inform the reader of what has actually happened.
SteveP
23rd March 2024, 16:10
I think you will find that a dismissal is “insufficient evidence to support the charge” in a court.
In Scotland, I think they might put that down as a “Not Proven”
Whatever your belief in the terminology, it is what it is. Meanwhile, the lady continues with her pursuit of her case.
GmP (@gmp)
23rd March 2024, 19:38
It often, but this time agree with you.
There is no ambiguity, there is no reading between the lines, or “what was not explicitly stated”.
amped
24th March 2024, 17:49
The grievance being dismissed DID clear him. That is the very definition.
People are desperate to misrepresent what it means to imply Hor er is guilty of something, and to create a conspiracy theory that there was a cover up.
Andrey Baydin (@minilemm)
23rd March 2024, 10:03
I’m kind of trying to like him ever since he said he wants to pay less attention to F1’s politics, let F1 take care of itself more and focus more on rally.
From this perspective I like to think teams/FOM want him out, whether it’s the comments on value of F1, him calling out something political or whatever else.
But really I’m just left scratching my head with all of these thinking how remarkably little we know. Lovely miniature insight in politics of bigger institutions huh.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
23rd March 2024, 12:57
The more mediocre Mercedes become, the less pain guys like Ben will have to deal with. Count on it. When Ferrari or Ford/RBR start pulling in 4+ teams with engine contracts that will be the time Toto cashes out and says so long suckers. These big wig investors stealing money from teams through political entrapment are destroying F1.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
23rd March 2024, 18:20
When MBS implied that he wanted to downplay F1 politics, I took that as a bit of classic redirection (nothing to see here, said the slight-of-hand artist).
Red Andy (@red-andy)
23rd March 2024, 19:52
I think the endgame for Liberty is not a change in the leadership of the FIA, but taking F1 out of the FIA altogether.
Sergey Martyn
23rd March 2024, 10:42
Oh no, big bad boys stole my lunchbox and filled my boots with some bad smelling yellow liquid!
Take some masterclass from Bernie for counteracting and avoiding malicious attempts.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
23rd March 2024, 18:21
Bernie was a proper criminal.
SteveP
23rd March 2024, 19:06
Not dead or retired yet, so maybe drop the “was”
An Sionnach
23rd March 2024, 11:54
1984? Come on Zak, you’re flogging the horse a bit too much there.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
23rd March 2024, 18:17
1984 is a bit on the nose, but he has a point.
GmP (@gmp)
23rd March 2024, 19:45
Everyone always wants transparency from other parties, but their own business remains closed. Take the Horner situation, has McLaren given full review of all their internal employee complaints cases, where there any complaints, how were those handled, what happened with it, corrective actions? I did not read anything about it, can I now demand transparency from McLaren? From Mercedes?
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
23rd March 2024, 12:53
Time to go after those who have abused the FIA and the teams through their political machinations and racketeering. Make it so !
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
23rd March 2024, 13:31
There’s only one solution to this – to go public with his social platform, FIA Truth Social, that has no users.
That will make him 3 billion and cover any and all crimes!
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
23rd March 2024, 19:00
At no point are the words untrue, unfounded, or totally fictitious used to describe what is going on. He actually states that the leaked information is true and it is the truth contained in the confidential and sensitive information that is tarnishing the organization. This plea should result in the immediate dismissal of the leader. The leader is the problem, not the leakers.
GmP (@gmp)
23rd March 2024, 19:47
No it doesn’t say all that. Far from it.
MichaelN
24th March 2024, 0:16
Not all leaks are similar. When Toto Wolff somehow knew that Red Bull had overspent in 2021 and was being further investigated, this was information that was due to come out at a later date and, while unfortunate, did not really result in lasting problems. But the confidential work of the ethnics committee is very different. That is the kind of material that is never supposed to become public, to protect everyone involved.