FIA vs Todt vs Eccelstone - Three Race (Miss) Allowance?

FIA Statement

“From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each team that has registered for the championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season. Any failure to take part, even for just one championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations”

Jean Todt to Italy's 'La Gazzetta dello Sport'

"In the last draft, the World (Motor Sport) Council (WMSC) granted the opportunity for a team not to participate in three rounds of the championship, although they don't have to be consecutive. If one pulls out, the insertion of a new team is not automatic - it is always up to the FIA to decide whether a team is eligible or not."

Bernie Eccelstne in the Sunday Express

Ecclestone has revealed that any team entered in the world championship is eligible to skip three of the season's races without penalty.

Opinion:

The head of FOM, Eccelstone, who is the commericial manager of F1, and the head of the FIA, Jean Todt, who is the sporting and technical manager of F1, have both said that F1 teams can miss three races without penalty. 

However, the FIA has released a statement that says all teams are expected to attend all races and that appropriate penalties will be metted out to those who fail to do so.

This makes it seem as if those who govern the sport, both commercially and technically, do not know the regulations of their respective contracts. My, my!

But, I have an explanation. There are two provisions in the Concorde agreement that deal with this. Provision 4.xx? says that the teams must appear, undergo scrutineering, and attempt to compete in every race for the duration of their agreement. Some factors may be allowed to obviate this requirement, such as force majure (a fire in your shop, a hurricane, other natural disasters, etc).

Elsewhere, the Concorde agreement says in provision 13.xx?, "if a team has failed to participate in more than three events in the same FIA F1 Championship it is considered to have withdrawn from the championship."

So, there is the truth. The agreement is that you will participate in every event. This is expected. However, you will not be excluded until you miss three events. The FIA says that penalties will be leived if you miss a race, but they do not promulgate the penalties.

However, if you miss three races you will be considered "withdrawn." So, Todt, Eccelstone, and the FIA are correct. But, all three tend to obfuscate the true meaning of their own agreements.

Am I surprised?

Comments

[Cipriano]

Bernie is obfuscated at the cellular level.

Thanks for the clarification.

[flood1]

Cipriano, You and I can read the rules, reach an understanding, and still be uncertain about the meanings. I am sure the teams have the same prob, and it should not be that way.

The FIA read the rules based on what they think the end result should be, and then fabricate a rationale to explain their decision.

It is very hard to get a decision until a component has been raced, or until a procedural rule has been trangressed.

Do the crime, and then the FIA will determine whether or not you are guilty.

The rules are defined by trangressions, not by clear ennunciation of purpose before the event.

[KM-TV]

Jean Todt is president of the FIA... so why is he contradicting his own organisation?

[Cipriano]

Thanks Flood.

But it seems that in recent years that rule interpretation has been a major issue i.e. diffusers.

Based on an this article, it seems that the FIA is finding other ways to disqualify USF1 - rookies cannot miss any races:http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/2010-02-11-3657600718_x.htm

They seem to be back peddling from their early statements that it was okay to miss a few races.

I certainly hope that what seems to be an effort to force out USF1 doesn't materialize. From a marketing perspective, it just doesn't make sense. Serbian market vs. American market - What gives?

[AC]

Isn't the concorde agreement, secret?

[flood1]

Hi AC, how are things at Axis of Oversteer?

For the most part it is secret, but when two guys who have read it, Bernie and Todt, discuss it openly (only to be corrected), other people also tend to open up. Of course they are never quoted and the accuracy of what they say cannot be verified.

I have a copy of the old agreement that was emailed to me a long time ago.

[AC]

I'm not sure I buy into this conspiracy to ban USF1 though. Just get the damn car ready and get out there.

[flood1]

I don't see a conspiracy, I seldom do, I don't think that way. They do just need to get the car on track and then the issues discussed above will disappear.

[Cipriano]

I base my conspiracy theory on the FIA's backpedaling from the early statements saying the teams were allowed to miss up to three races. Both Todt and Eccelstone were quoted with this statement.

They have now "clarified" that statement saying that teams missing any race or any rookie missing a race will not be in compliance with the Concorde Agreement.

The clarification is totally contradictory to earlier statements. Why the change?

[AC]

Well, why should some teams get preferential treatment anyway, USF1 has had plenty of time to set up and build the car, Lotus and Virgin were able to build cars from scratch....