Apparently 'sense' has prevailed for the time being at the FIA after their ill-fated attempt to rewrite the Formula 1 rule book yet again. (World Motor Sport Council - Decisions press release 17/03/2009).
Today's new FIA Formula One World Championship press release (20/03/2009) is a rather embarassing U-turn, brought about purely by the amount of ridicule they've suffered from just about all corners for the last couple of days.
It seems that Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone are yet again determined to make the power play between the constructors and the governing body the main focus of the coming F1 season, rather than the actual competition itself.
Now I'm not sure whether there's a need in the first place for a revised scoring system, but assuming that all parties believe there is, then the ineptitude of Bernie's 'winner takes all' idea is so blindingly obvious that it beggars belief that anyone would even consider it.
As I understand it, the Drivers' Championship would be awarded pure and simply to the driver who had achieved the most wins during that season. In the event of a tie the title would go to the driver with the highest total number of points scored. Irrespective of what points are awarded to the first 3 places - can anyone see the blindingly obvious flaw with this system?
Well consider this, at the end of last season (2008) there were 22 drivers in the official rankings who could have started in 18 races. With Mr Ecclestone's 'new and improved' scoring system, the following scenario suddenly becomes a frightening possibility.
Driver 1 wins the first 4 races and then doesn't finish another race for the rest of the season, meanwhile 5 other drivers are going at it 'hammer and tongs' each winning every other race between them, though no driver has more than 3 wins to his credit. He does however have numerous 2nd and 3rd places etc. and all finish in each of the season's 18 races. All that however would count for nought with regards to the Drivers' Championship as they can't match the 4 wins of Driver 1. So you tell me, does that mean the best driver has won - I think not.
Now if I, and presumably others can see the flaw in Bernie Ecclestone's system, why couldn't the supposed experts who run Formula 1?
Yet another example of incompetent thinking by people in positions of power.
I personally hope the balance of power in F1 shifts away from the FIA / WMSC to FOTA. After all, they're the ones having to work with the cars and drivers day in day out to achieve the incredible feats of man and machine which makes F1 such an exciting spectator sport.
But then again, that's just my opinion.
"Winning isn't always finishing first.
Sometimes winning is just finishing."
- Manuel Diotte
Friday 20 March 2009
Wednesday 18 March 2009
"Passive Drinking"
On the 16th March 2009, the UK Government's Chief Medical Officer - Sir Liam Donaldson released the Annual Report on the State of Public Health (2008). Of the 5 topics he chose to cover, only one really made any impact in terms of news worthiness - Passive Drinking (apparently he came up with the term himself). And that I'm afraid is indicative of the level of thought that went into the conclusions Sir Donaldson came up with as a means of combating the rise in 'collateral damage from alchohol'.
I know we're all trying to go 'green' but his recycling of the 'price and access' ideology used so effectively against passive smoking is in my opinion ill conceived.
Basically his bright idea is that if you raise the price of alcohol high enough, it will deter people from getting drunk and thus stop these people from committing crimes and having accidents. Honestly, I kid you not. This incredibly naive display of reasoning would be laughable except for the fact that some of our politicians; who also lack the power of logical reasoning, are actually giving credence to Sir Donaldson's ill thought out solutions to our very real social problems.
No right minded person would deny that some people who are drunk will commit crimes or be involved in accidents (both of which use up vital emergency services resources). However, increasing the minimum price of alcohol is not the solution. Once again, the so called 'authorities' would rather take away my freedom of choice than make the individual responsible for their actions.
In a free market economy, I should have the right to buy alcohol as cheaply as possible, but if I chose to abuse that right by my subsequent actions, then the authorities should also have the right to make me pay as dearly as possible for my criminal/anti-social behaviour (whether that be by increased prison sentences or by having to pay for medical treatment of alcohol related injuries).
Sir Donaldson quotes figures that claim it would take 10 years to see the full effects of his policies, which could also create a total saving of £1 billion a year. I believe that if a zero tolerance approach to drunken behaviour was enforced, along with a policy of the NHS not covering self-inflicted alcohol related injuries (i.e if your drunken fall results in a broken leg you pay the medical bills - not the sober tax payer!) then I bet the fiscal savings and the effect on the community would be a lot greater and a lot more immediate than those envisaged over 10 years.
Well, I think I've written enough about this now. If anybody ever reads this and wishes to challenge any of the points I've made, then I'd be happy to go into further details.
References:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/AnnualReports/DH_096206
I know we're all trying to go 'green' but his recycling of the 'price and access' ideology used so effectively against passive smoking is in my opinion ill conceived.
Basically his bright idea is that if you raise the price of alcohol high enough, it will deter people from getting drunk and thus stop these people from committing crimes and having accidents. Honestly, I kid you not. This incredibly naive display of reasoning would be laughable except for the fact that some of our politicians; who also lack the power of logical reasoning, are actually giving credence to Sir Donaldson's ill thought out solutions to our very real social problems.
No right minded person would deny that some people who are drunk will commit crimes or be involved in accidents (both of which use up vital emergency services resources). However, increasing the minimum price of alcohol is not the solution. Once again, the so called 'authorities' would rather take away my freedom of choice than make the individual responsible for their actions.
In a free market economy, I should have the right to buy alcohol as cheaply as possible, but if I chose to abuse that right by my subsequent actions, then the authorities should also have the right to make me pay as dearly as possible for my criminal/anti-social behaviour (whether that be by increased prison sentences or by having to pay for medical treatment of alcohol related injuries).
Sir Donaldson quotes figures that claim it would take 10 years to see the full effects of his policies, which could also create a total saving of £1 billion a year. I believe that if a zero tolerance approach to drunken behaviour was enforced, along with a policy of the NHS not covering self-inflicted alcohol related injuries (i.e if your drunken fall results in a broken leg you pay the medical bills - not the sober tax payer!) then I bet the fiscal savings and the effect on the community would be a lot greater and a lot more immediate than those envisaged over 10 years.
Well, I think I've written enough about this now. If anybody ever reads this and wishes to challenge any of the points I've made, then I'd be happy to go into further details.
References:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/AnnualReports/DH_096206
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
