Transcript of the press conference held today at Silverstone with Max Mosley, President of the FIA:

Max Mosley: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. There are four main topics which I would like to cover briefly, before inviting you to ask your own questions.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

It is now well known that we have had the occasional problem with the European Commission. Let me make it clear, first, that what I am about to say relates to the old regime, not to the new Commission which will take over shortly. Secondly, my comments relate to the commissioners who have gone, and to their private cabinets, rather than to the permanent officials of the EU, who work on the other side of Brussels. I believe that under the new regime we can look forward to a phase of rational discussion, rather than a continuance of the confrontation which has predominated during two of the five last years of the Commission. For the first three years, of course, they did not bother at all with the subject of Formula One racing.

Last month there was a release, to the Financial Times, of information relating to a confidential Statement of Objections addressed to the FIA. The release took place before the FIA had seen the document. This is a matter which we will obviously take up with the authorities. They then gave a press conference, and I would like to offer you one illustration of the way in which the outgoing Commissioner for Competition and his staff have behaved. Among many inaccurate statements made during that press conference was their response to a question about the proceedings which we have brought against the Commission in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The official spokesman for the Commission described these as proceedings for libel. We have never said anything in public about these proceedings before, but as anyone with a basic knowledge of European law would know, the Commission cannot be sued for libel. The truth of what these proceedings are about is the following.

In December 1997, the Commission sent us a warning letter. This warning letter was a confidential document: it is against the law to show it to anyone. Nevertheless, the deputy official spokesperson for the Commission called four journalists into a room one each from the Financial Times, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and, I believe, The Guardian and gave them copies of the letter. Since this was a flagrant breach of European law, we wrote to the Commission to say that we thought this should not have been allowed to happen. The Commission then denied, in writing, that any leak had taken place. For the next three months they repeatedly denied, in writing, that they had illegally passed confidential documents to the press.

Eventually, after we had confronted the Commission with the names of the journalists, the identity of the official and details of the location and time of the leak, they were finally forced to confess that they had indeed committed the illegality. We then invited them to take various steps to put things right, and when they failed to take those steps we brought proceedings in the European Court of Justice. Those proceedings against the Commission are now in the preliminary stages, and they have yet to come to trial.

For a publicly paid official to have solemnly informed the press that these proceedings were for libel, when he knew perfectly well that they concerned the illegal disclosure of confidential documents, was at best disingenuous. You might even describe it as a downright lie. And whether public officials should be paid to behave in such a way is a matter for the voter, not for us. It will also be drawn to the attention of the court. Meanwhile, you will now have an idea of how these proceedings have until now been conducted by the outgoing Commissioner and his staff.

Having said that, to our knowledge the incoming Commissioner is a very different sort of person. And it must also be said that the head of the permanent services of the Competition directorate, Dr Schaub, also appears to be someone who wishes to resolve problems rather than adding to them. Meanwhile, the anecdote I have just recounted will give you an illustration of the difficulties we have faced until now. Now, in anticipation of the complete overhaul of the Commission which its new President has promised, we hope to see very different conduct in the future. And it must be said that we feel sure that will happen.

TOBACCO

My feeling on this matter is that Formula One will have to give up tobacco sponsorship in the medium to longer term. I believe that unless tobacco sponsorship is dropped, the sport risks finding itself in an increasingly disadvantaged position vis-a-vis the general, mainstream, non-tobacco sponsorship of sport. I emphasise, however, that this is my personal view. It is NOT necessarily the view of the FIA, or indeed of the teams.

Having said that, however, if it could be established that young people, and people who otherwise would not have smoked, take up smoking as a result of the promotional activities of the sponsored teams in F1, I am confident that the teams themselves would voluntarily do away with tobacco sponsorship at an early date.

Accordingly, on December 15, we wrote a letter to the Ministers of Health in every country where a Grand Prix takes place, to request evidence on this point. We also wrote to the then EU Commissioner for Health, Mr Flynn, and to the World Health Organisation (WHO), requesting the same information. We wanted evidence if there be any that people who would not otherwise have smoked now do so because of Formula 1. We also placed a quarter page in The Economist, asking anyone who was interested in the subject to send us the same information.

We allowed ourselves six months, until June 30, to receive the information, following which we planned to hold an enquiry, in front of a completely independent judicial authority, at which anybody who wished to appear could be represented. The enquiry would have been completely independent of the FIA, and the authority would then determine whether people had taken up smoking who otherwise would not have done so, as a result of the influence of tobacco advertising in F1.

The results were certainly illuminating. Of the Ministers for Health in the countries where Grands Prix take place, only two the German and British Ministers bothered to respond. Despite a promise made by telephone, the World Health Organisation did not even bother to answer: I have written them another letter. But if these bodies cannot even bother to answer such a simple question, it does demonstrate something rather less than a great interest among the Ministers for Health as to whether tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Formula One have any effect on smoking habits.

This is a disappointing response. We will wait and see if any information is forthcoming, however late it may be, but meanwhile it is impossible to hold an enquiry if the people who want to see the sponsorship forbidden are not prepared to answer a simple question.

DOPING

As you will know, we held a dope test at Magny-Cours. There was to have been another one here, but there was a slight misunderstanding, unfortunately involving two branches of the FIA. One branch thought the test was due to take place today, Saturday, while the other thought it would be held yesterday. With the teams having been warned, understandably the Stewards cancelled the test. But we usually conduct two or three dope tests per year, and a further test will undoubtedly take place later in the season. And as you know, until now nothing has been found.

Now I don't want anyone to imagine that we are complacent, but the best medical evidence available to us suggests that at present there is no drug known which could make a competitor drive faster than he normally would. If there were such a drug, then I suggest we might find we had a major problem. Meanwhile we are keeping our eye on this matter, and we will continue testing against the possibility that we find something unusual which would point us in the direction of some magic substance that now even the IOC knows about. We are conscious of the danger and very anxious to stay on top of any problems which might arise. So far, however, we have not found anything disquieting. But that is no reason not to test regularly.

GROOVED TYRES

Recently there has been a great deal of discussion about grooved tyres and the supposed effect they have, in conjunction with the aerodynamics, on making overtaking impossible. The race at Magny-Cours, with its 68 overtakings between two cars that were both running competitively at the time of the manoeuvre, may have taken the sting out of that accusation. But one point worth making is that we are constantly told that what we need for better racing is less aerodynamic downforce and more mechanical grip.

When it rains, however, if the teams have the chance to do so, they will increase the aerodynamic grip because the mechanical grip has been reduced by the presence of water. The racing doesn't suffer too much, although one serious problem which does arise in those circumstances is that of visibility. And that is something that we are studying in parallel with an investigation into porous asphalt although that is another story.

My own opinion is that the grooved tyres should stay, because they have proved the most effective way of keeping cornering speeds under control. When we introduced the grooves, there were two potential methods of reducing cornering speeds. One was grooved tyres, a limitation we were told which would cost ten seconds per lap and destroy Formula One. When the grooved tyres were being evaluated, we were repeatedly told, by people who should have known better, that F1 would become so slow that the whole spectacle would be ruined.

On top of that it was the Formula One engineers themselves, voting by a majority of five to one, who came up with the idea of making the cars ten per cent narrower. This, we were told, would increase lap times by 1.5 seconds. We didn't quite believe this argument because we had heard that kind of thing so many times before, so we brought in the grooves as well as the narrower cars. Notwithstanding the grooved tyres, and notwithstanding the narrower track, the 1998 cars were sometimes quicker than the wider cars had been on slick tyres one year earlier.

In fact our target of returning lap speeds to the levels of 1996 was not achieved, and we barely held it at 1997 levels. This year, 1999, the problem has been eased because there isn't a tyre war anymore. Just for the record, the fourth groove was never intended to slow the cars but to restore the weight distribution to acceptable proportions. I think that has been achieved, but it was always a side issue.

For the future, and again this is my personal view, I believe there is much merit in the suggestion that the cars are now too efficient aerodynamically. It is not difficult to see why. Even five years ago, a top team would spend maybe seven days in the wind tunnel every three months. Now, all the top teams have their own 50 per cent scale rolling-road wind tunnels, all of them vastly more sophisticated than anything anyone had five years ago, in which they spend 18 hours a day, six days a week. To make the models used in the wind tunnel, they all have dedicated departments which are bigger than an average F1 factory was 15 years ago. This is an enormous operation and progress is inevitably very rapid.

It is therefore not surprising that the latest F1 cars are so sophisticated aerodynamically, and not surprising that operating them in still air, for which they are designed, and doing the same in turbulent air, in which of course a driver must run if he wishes to overtake, that the difference is bigger and probably getting bigger all the time. We have asked the engineers to examine this dilemma. Meanwhile, all that can be done by the FIA and the team principals is to decide in which direction the technical regulations are to take us. But if the solution is a move to reduce aerodynamic efficiency, the means of achieving that must be left to the F1 engineers themselves. This is a subject in which the more you know about it, the more you realise you don't know. It must be left to the experts.

There is one final point on the subject of overtaking, and that concerns the brainstorming meeting that we want to organise on this and several other subjects. That meeting is still going to take place. Indeed, following the announcement of the meeting, we have received a large number of letters from management consultants offering to sort out the problems of F1. This demonstrates the success of Formula One, a success for which, incidentally, we cannot claim all the credit, for that is due to people like Bernie Ecclestone who have played such an important role on the commercial side. The fact is, though, that we never receive letters offering to sort out the World Rally Championship, or GT cars, or sports cars, or the International Touring Car championship. No, they all want to get involved in F1, the championship that already works well. It is quite irritating, because although we do have a few problems with F1, it is not the sort of thing which could be solved by outside consultants.

I am sorry to have gone on at such length on these four subjects. Does anybody now wish to ask any questions?

Q. (Joe Saward) Mr President, on the subjects of tobacco and advertising, you said that you had received replies from the German and British Ministers for Health. Did they send any evidence?

Mosley: The British sent a certain amount of evidence that young people become more aware of a given brand if it is advertised and/or used in a sponsorship campaign. But we are still waiting for evidence that people start to smoke as a result of the promotion. The Germans sent material which amounted more to an opinion than direct evidence. I must say here that Padraig Flynn, the EU's outgoing Commissioner for Health, said some months ago that the EU still needed to look for evidence that people take up smoking as a result of sponsorship. To me, that statement carried the implication that the EU's research into this matter was neither as complete nor perhaps as thorough as one might have hoped.

One of the points we have emphasised to many of the Ministers of Health is that if we can understand why people take up the habit of smoking, we might also learn why they take up illegal drug taking. That might be helpful to us, because obviously people don't start taking illegal drugs as a consequence of sponsorship or advertising.

Q. Several questions here. Can you please explain why the brainstorming meeting of the team bosses hasn't yet taken place? Is it now too late for any recommendations which might arise from such a meeting to be incorporated into the F1 rules for next year? And finally, since the stability rules are now part of the Concorde Agreement, which we are not allowed to see, will you please make it possible for us to have sight of the rules which govern our sport?

Mosley: It is fair comment that the development of the rules no longer forms part of the International Sporting Code. But it doesn't make any difference to the so-called brainstorming session. The idea behind that meeting was not to look at F1 as we have it now, because the teams all have too many particular vested interests. Instead, we wanted to look at ideals, examining how the frame the rules for, say, five or seven years ahead. Once any disagreements or practical problems related to those rules had been sorted out on that basis, we proposed to select some of those ideas to see if they could be applied to the existing cars.

We believe it is essential for everyone to be represented at such a meeting, and the reason it didn't take place in June, as originally planned, was that two teams were unable to be present. One of them cancelled at the last minute, which was decisive in postponing it.

As far as changing the rules is concerned, under the Concorde Agreement, they can be modified at any moment, provided that all the teams and the FIA are in agreement. The date of any meeting is therefore not important. However, the regulations on the chassis and similar matters can be changed by a majority on one clear year's notice. If a change is proposed which affects the engine and gearbox, or their performance, then unanimity is required for the duration of the Concorde Agreement.

Q. It seems insane that we cannot have sight of all the rules. Is there some reason why we are denied this information?

Mosley: I don't think anyone has asked until now. If someone were to write to me asking on what basis the rules can be changed, I would write back sending the details. There are all sorts of reason why we don't publish the Concorde Agreement, which contains a lot of confidential information. If any wants information like that, though, the first thing to do is to write us a letter. I am very reluctant to write back refusing to provide you with such information.

Q. (Paul Treuthardt) On the question of overtaking, may I suggest that Magny-Cours was hardly a typical F1 race? The atmospheric conditions were hardly similar to what we might expect to have here in tomorrow's race. And anyway the cars were running on rain tyres in France, which seems to invalidate your arguments in favour of grooved dry-weather tyres ...

Mosley: My observations on the French GP, which necessarily involved having to watch it on television, are that the race started in the dry, and the entire field was running at that stage on dry-weather tyres. There were then a succession of spectacular overtaking manoeuvres, in particular those involving Hakkinen and Irvine, who were coming through from 14th and 17th places on the grid. They were overtaking one car after another, all under dry conditions, all on dry-weather tyres, and with the cars set up appropriately after a week's testing at the same circuit.

Around laps 21 or 22, when it started to rain, everybody came in to change to wet tyres, and soon after that the Safety Car was brought out. But once the Safety Car had pulled off, the race continued as spectacularly as before, but now with everyone on wet tyres. It was an absolutely perfect example of racing under both conditions, dry and wet.

But forget Magny-Cours for a moment. There was spectacular overtaking in the previous race, in Canada. There was also some extraordinary driving in Australia, where I believe Frentzen and Ralf Schumacher exchanged places twice on the first lap alone. If anybody ever bothered to do an analysis, rather than jumping to conclusions, he would find that there is a significant amount of overtaking in F1 races. To have taken Barcelona as an example was unfair, because it was the exception rather than the rule. I think it is a great mistake to take one monotonous race as an example, and then to get into a panic about the future of F1. Yes, we were unlucky with Barcelona, because it was not a very interesting race which happens and it had the misfortune to follow a very entertaining football match between Bayern Munich and Manchester United. One week later there was a very boring football international, between England and Sweden, and a fascinating motor race in Canada. The football was then all forgotten.

The fact of the matter is that when these drivers need to overtake, they can do so if they wish. But such is the attention on modern Formula One racing that if they're running in the first six places, modern drivers are very reluctant to risk losing points at that stage. But just put a top driver at the back of the field, and you'll see some overtaking.

Q. Would it be inappropriate to remind you here that none other than Mr Ecclestone recently stated that he was in favour of a return to slick tyres?

Mosley: Yes, Mr Ecclestone did suggest a return to slick tyres. Bernie gets most things right, but not even he is right all the time about everything.

Q. (Mike Doodson) In giving us the details of the illegal release of information to the four publications in December last, you referred only to 'they,' not to named individuals. Can you please be more specific, and especially about Mr van Miert? Many of us have seen a new business magazine, which has been heavily promoted at recent Grands Prix, which recently described Mr van Miert as 'the most powerful man in Europe,' while you appear to regard him as a spent force. May we please have some guidance on this?

Mosley: First of all, the magazine in question is, I think, in some way connected to Bernie Ecclestone. And knowing Bernie, who must never be underestimated, it may all be a very elaborate joke. Having said that, I imagine the reason there are so many copies of the magazine available here at Silverstone could be that it has been on the newsstands too long. It seems likely that magazine buyers, seeing van Miert described as the most powerful man in Europe, realised instantly that it was rubbish and refused to buy the magazine. So the joke may have backfired.

As far as we are concerned, van Miert is, happily, a spent force. There is no doubt that the way he conducted himself was not appropriate for somebody who occupied a quasi-judicial position. He launched a huge attack in the press on the FIA, before he had had any opportunity to hear our side of the case. To any lawyer or judge, that was anathema: it is a basic principle of natural justice that you listen to both sides before making any judgment. I think that sort of behaviour will stop now, under a new Commissioner for Competition, and we can expect a much more responsible attitude. I suspect that van Miert was motivated partly by a love of publicity: he's well known for getting excited in the presence of a microphone. Perhaps also his attitude was not unconnected with the problems caused in Belgium by the fact that the tobacco ban on the Grand Prix was initiated by the country's Flemish Socialist party, of which he was a prominent member, while the opposition came from the French-speaking Walloon side. Certain members of his own cabinet then behaved in an unconscionable manner, having regard to the fact that he held a quasi-judicial office. Most people who read newspapers would be astonished to learn that someone like van Miert could have attacked a body like the FIA without giving it any opportunity to defend itself. But that dispute is all now for the European Court to decide. And now when I exchange letters with him, which I do occasionally, he writes back to say that the matter is 'sub judice.' For the moment, that excuses him from having to answer my correspondence.

Q. Now that he has gone, will you withdraw the litigation?

Mosley: While I don't want to breach any confidences on this subject, there have been discussions with the Commission about settling it.

Q. On June 30, Mr Ecclestone's Formula One Management company issued a statement, relating to television rights, that it did not rely on the FIA to obtain the broadcasting rights to F1 races. The statement claimed that FOM wins business 'through its own efforts.' Is this true? Does it mean that the FIA is not the first holder of the rights which are exercised at its discretion by Mr Ecclestone and his companies?

Mosley: Because they are governed by national law, television rights are an immensely complex subject. Even in the EU, who owns the television to an event before anyone makes a contract is governed by the national law of the country in which the race is held. This means that we hold Grands Prix under 14 different legal systems, with 14 different answers. But it is not as simple as seeking the advice of one lawyer in each of those 14 different countries. In Germany, for example, we were advised that the legal situation was similar to that in England, where the important factor is who owns the piece of land where the event takes place, and who can or cannot grant access to that piece of land.

But in Germany we have been sued by a man called Eisele, who wanted to film truck racing. The matter went to the German courts, where four interlocutary hearings were held, then a hearing at first instance before the case went to appeal. Mr Eisele lost at first instance and he lost again at appeal. But during the course of those proceedings it became clear that part of the issue, in Germany at least, was whether the FIA was a co-owner by virtue of the role it played in the organisation of each event. Unfortunately, not even German law is sure on this point, because there is a suggestion in the German football case which says that this may not necessarily be a purely economic factor, it may also be an organisational factor.

Mr Eisele has now appealed to the German Supreme Court, which will almost certainly apply to the special facts of truck racing, where our involvement is at a relatively low level, and have only a passing relevance to F1 racing, where our involvement is much greater.

Now that is just one of the 14 legal systems. I hope it will give you some idea of how difficult it would be to identify the true owner or owners of the rights before any contract is made.

Bernie has a sound method of dealing with such difficulties. He draws up a list for himself of anyone who, under any interpretation of the legal system, could possibly own rights. It could be us, the FIA, or it could be the local promoter, the local organiser, in certain countries the local federation, the local government, the teams anyone he can think of. What he then does is to acquire, for consideration, the rights to each Grand Prix from every single person or body that could possibly be involved. As a result, his situation is invariably secure, because he can point out that it doesn't matter who is the true original owner of the rights under the local jurisdiction whoever it is, Bernie has bought them from him. That strengthens his position in the event that anyone's entitlement to sell him the broadcasting rights should be subsequently challenged. If the Commission, for example, decides to inform him that the FIA never had the right to sell him anything, then he can say that's irrelevant, since he has bought the rights from all those others who may conceivably also have been involved. To that extent, therefore, the decisions of the Commission are irrelevant to Bernie, because he will have acquired the rights from whoever may have an involvement.

Q. (Peter Windsor) When did Bernie buy all those rights? How long did it take him to do it?

Mosley: He started buying the rights in the early Seventies. Back at the beginnings of FOCA, when I was on the other side of the political dividing line, Bernie had realised at a very early that it was essential for the future of Formula One to have all the television rights in one basket. In the Seventies, to find the results of a major motor race was extremely difficult. Either you telephoned a news agency or looked for the occasional few minutes of TV, tucked between the cricket and the hockey. In those days British TV might show extracts of Monaco, Monza and the British GP, and that was all.

Bernie's approach then was make an offer to race organiser: FOCA would offer to race for a stated fee, while also taking over the TV rights to the race, at least outside the country. Gradually, through the Seventies, he acquired the TV rights to all the races. This enabled him to reach an agreement with broadcasters for them to show the entire championship. This allowed him to build up the largest possible audience and obtain the widest possible TV coverage. As a result, the TV rights gradually became valuable. By the time the first Concorde Agreement was signed in 1981, Bernie had acquired the TV rights to virtually every Grand Prix. One of the most important provisions of the Concorde Agreement was that those rights should be handed over to the FIA, and then ceded back to Bernie. That was the beginning of the FIA's controlling interest in the TV rights to Formula One. In truth, I believe the FIA does indeed have important inherent rights in its own championships. But before you can run a championship, you need events, and to run events you need competitors. It builds up to a complicated picture.

Q. (Paul Treuthardt) A question about the provisional calendar for 2000. The organisers of the Malaysian and Australian GPs are here, both seeking to change the dates that have been marked down for their races. The Malaysians say that February is inappropriate because it is monsoon season, while the Australians have a local date clash on the weekend they've been given. How id it happen that the provisional calendar was issued with dates that the race organisers are actively trying to change?

Mosley: The calendar always involves a certain amount of compromise, and there will always be some people who are not happy with the dates they're given. The reason was this: we want to group the Asian and Australasian races at the beginning of the season rather than at the end, because if we have an exciting championship which goes all the way to the final event, we would lose a large chunk of the TV audience if the deciding race were to take place at 3 o'clock in the morning. The ideal situation would be to have the Asian races early at the beginning of the season, with the US and South American events at the end of the year, when viewers would be able to go out during the day and then return at a convenient time to watch the races in the evening.

This involves a certain amount of negotiation. As far as Australia is concerned, the date they have been given happens to fit in well with Malaysia. But we get these dates as a proposal from FOA, Bernie Ecclestone's company, and unless there is some serious reason to refuse, we accept it. Then the discussions start. Looking at the calendar rationally, we would give the Australians the date March 12 which they want, and Malaysia at the end of the season, together with Japan. The trouble with that schedule is if the championship goes to the final round, then you would lose a huge chunk of the television audience.

Q. (Mike Doodson) It seems clear that your concern is exclusively for the European TV audience. May I therefore remind you of your statement of October 1997, when you claimed that 70 per cent of the TV audience for F1 originated in Asia. Surely they are the people whose pleasant afternoons should be considered when the calendar is being prepared?

Mosley: That's a perfectly fair point. You have too good a memory! In fact, a European-timed race is quite a good time in Asia, while Asian-timed races are a disaster as far as the European audience is concerned. And Europe is certainly an important television audience, even if numerically it isn't as big. Looking at the television audiences around the world, it does make sense to have the Asian races grouped at the beginning of the season. Everything considered, if there's the risk of losing 30 or 40 percent of the audience for F1 racing due to inconvenient timing, it is better to lose it in Asia than in Europe. But this is not really our department, it is Bernie's.

Q. Mr Mosley, do you happen to know whether we will see the F1 cars running fully-branded at Spa this year? If not, does that put the Belgian GP in danger?

Mosley: As far as I know, there is a law in that region of Belgium which allows the tobacco advertising to continue. And although I haven't followed the matter carefully, I believe that law is now being challenged in the Belgian courts. If there were a ruling preventing tobacco advertising in Belgium, that would put the organisers in breach of contract and the teams might well decide not to race, as they would then be entitled to do for that reason. That would obviously put the race into danger.

Q. Would that happen this year already?

Mosley: I honestly don't know, because it depends on the progress of the legal proceedings. However, I think it could be a threat to the race, which I would regard as a great shame, because Spa is one of the great circuits. My opinion is that the sensible procedure there would be for the Belgian authorities to observe the European directive. There is a directive now in force, which will gradually come into effect on Formula One between now and 2006, and it is my opinion that on this sort of matter we should all observe EU rulings. It is too complicated if each country wants to have a separate arrangement.