Commentary on PDVSA's involvement in formula 1 and morale of

[Porrima]

Edit: "Commentary on PDVSA's involvement in formula 1 and morale of F1 leadership" was the actual headline. Should have known it wouldn't fit. I apologize that I am always wordy.



Hello. Not everyone will like this sort of posting here, but the board says "speaking your mind of current goings on in F1. This is not related to racing, but Formula as a business is involved. If you don't find political discussion here appropriate, please skip.

I recently watched a documentary in finnish television about Venezuela's current situation. I consider finnish authorities and television documentaries to be, generally, reliable.
I consider myself reasonably well read and up to date on what happens in the world, and I definitely knew Venezuela is practically a military dictatorship, but I was not aware things are so bad there currently.

In short, even compared to dangerous South America in general, crime in Venezuela has shot through the roof. Security is the number one concern of the people of Venezuela, but the Chavez government does nothing except maintain it's own power.
All police that doesn't work for Chavez is neutered - their arms have been taken away, when the gangs have automatic weapons. The government of Chavez is directly responsible for much of the increased violence due to Chavez's divide et impera approach - he incites different ethnic (etc.) groups against one another, and his security forces openly use threats of violence and actual violence against human rights activists, and his speeches contain the message, that violence is the proper way of handling situations. A professor of justice explained in the documentary, that people of Venezuela, especially the uneducated, to which Chavez's rhetoric is aimed at, have started to see constant violence as a normal state of affairs. Pre-Chavez Venezuela had, in the 1990's, 4500 homicides per annum. This was a lot, by the way, for 25 million people. Now the numbers are 19,000 per year. Free press has been shut down, and charged of treason against the country.

As we know, PDVSA sponsors Williams, and has lifted Rev. MacDonaldo into F1. I have nothing against Maldonado - what his opinions and feelings are are unknown, and he couldn't speak against the hand that feeds him even if he wanted to.
PDVSA is a nationalized oil company, that is directly controlled by Chavez or his cronies. Allowing such a company to openly work in F1 though the truth is clearly out there, doesn't do much good to F1. Not that this is a special case - Bahrain's government brutally, with the assistance of god damn Saudi Arabia, suppressed its own arab summer, and brutalized the protesters. F1 is happily trekking there in support of its government, or at least not seeing political repression as a problem.

Of course, mr. B. Ecclestone's views on dictatorships are clear. I do not believe he himself is directly in support of brutal actions against people, nor would do such a thing if he was a dictator - t's obvious why he preferes dictatorship - you can get things done and keep the caravan rolling.

Western democracies and governments are generally much better than most governments abroad, but they have a long history of ignoring those human rights violations they see fit, dependent on whether keeping a dictatorship in power is beneficial to them. I like F1, and want to follow it and watch races, but it really bothers me how openly it flirts with corrupted circles.
If I was of stronger moral fibre, I'd stop watching the whole shebang, but this would of course have as much an effect as not buying 1 kilo of apples from country X in protest. Ergo, not very much at all. Also, blaming, say, organizers of GP Great Britain, or drivers, for F1's seedier involvements wouldn't be very fair.

Le sigh.

[DemocalypseNow]

Not to mention giving assistance to the FARC, a rebellion front against the neighbouring Colombia.

Many communist dictators are like this for reasons I cannot understand, they still flirt with capitalism despite the fact in theory they are against it. Why is Chavez even getting involved in Formula 1? What is his bigger plan? Is the Williams sponsorship merely a Weapon of Mass Distraction?

[Londoner]

If the rumours are to be believed, Chavez will be dead by the end of the year because of his cancer (last reports said he had 9 months to live). If he does pass on, I wonder what will go down with PDVSA and the government. I think Chavez's party will remain in power, and thus nothing will change.

[Shadaza]

Of course you will have to rely on me to provide a counter balance on this situation.

Whilst undoubtedly the situation in Venezuela is bad it is by no means unique to South America, with "gang land" violence rampent in countries such as Colombia and even Brazil where a Grand Prix is held. The reason Venezuela gets so much attention is because Chavez is not USA approved, and as such much is made to discredit his position, with of course oil a big part issue. Raising the issue of Venezuela sponsoring uprising in Columbia is a whole different can of worms and if you are of the belief that sponsoring the destabilising another countries government is wrong then you will have to cancel practically every round on the calender because news flash, everyone does it. It's wrong and I hate it, but it is done.

Politics aside, the fact that PDVSA sponsoring F1 is not really related to the moral and human rights issue surrounding the country, indeed you could say the promotion of Venezuelan athletes is a positive step if anything as it opens the country to speculation, as opposed to a closed off country like North Korea. Now if Venezuela were to be on the calendar I would be amongst the first people to complain but to have positive role models in sport is never a bad thing and Pastor Maldonado certainly does not detract from F1, if seeing him driving around successfully in F1 would inspire people away from gang land life then this is only a good thing.

In the end of the day, I am a big fan of sports and politics not mixing, in some circumstances such a move is impossible, Bahrain being a big flash point. PDVSA's sponsorship, though controversial, should be permitted because forbidding this would be a large step against the impartiality any fair sporting body should have.

[Salamander]

Not to mention giving assistance to the FARC, a rebellion front against the neighbouring Colombia.

Many communist dictators are like this for reasons I cannot understand, they still flirt with capitalism despite the fact in theory they are against it. Why is Chavez even getting involved in Formula 1? What is his bigger plan? Is the Williams sponsorship merely a Weapon of Mass Distraction?

Chavez isn't actually a communist, thoug. He's a socialist, but in the eyes of some, they're practically the same thing. If I were to guess at his motivations, I'd say he's probably trying to promote Venezuela as a tourist destination or something, similar to Malaysia's tie-up with Stewart GP. The difference is I really can't think of any reason why you'd go to Venezuela, considering the aforementioned crime and homicide rates.

As we know, PDVSA sponsors Williams, and has lifted Rev. MacDonaldo into F1. I have nothing against Maldonado - what his opinions and feelings are are unknown, and he couldn't speak against the hand that feeds him even if he wanted to.

Actually, I think Maldonado is quite friendly with Chavez, or at least, what I've read seems to suggest that. Then again, it probably wouldn't be wise to speak out against the man that's bankrolling his career.

[DemocalypseNow]

I used the word 'communist' as a synonym for 'dictator' without actually saying outright that he was a dictator. Because, technically, calling him that would be incorrect, but do you really expect him to relinquish power if he was voted out via election?

As for the PDVSA-Chavez connection, I'm not sure it's quite as friendly as some people are making out. Remember the general strike from 2002/3? PDVSA basically shut themselves down in protest against Chavez. That doesn't sound like the action of an organisation under the president's thumb.

[Salamander]

I used the word 'communist' as a synonym for 'dictator' without actually saying outright that he was a dictator.

Many communist dictators...

Care to rethink that statement? Also, since when has 'communist' been a synonym for dictator? They usually turn out that way, but that doesn't mean that they're one and the same.

As for the PDVSA-Chavez connection, I'm not sure it's quite as friendly as some people are making out. Remember the general strike from 2002/3? PDVSA basically shut themselves down in protest against Chavez. That doesn't sound like the action of an organisation under the president's thumb.

Things can change in 10 years. Especially when nearly 20,000 workers are replaced with people loyal to Chavez.

[DemocalypseNow]

I used the word 'communist' as a synonym for 'dictator' without actually saying outright that he was a dictator.

Many communist dictators...

Care to rethink that statement? Also, since when has 'communist' been a synonym for dictator? They usually turn out that way, but that doesn't mean that they're one and the same.

Answer is contained within statement. Can you name some examples where this hasn't happened?

[Salamander]

I used the word 'communist' as a synonym for 'dictator' without actually saying outright that he was a dictator.

Many communist dictators...

Care to rethink that statement? Also, since when has 'communist' been a synonym for dictator? They usually turn out that way, but that doesn't mean that they're one and the same.

Answer is contained within statement. Can you name some examples where this hasn't happened?

No, but that doesn't mean that dictatorship is a key feature in a communist state. Also, why are you using communist as a synonym for dictator when you have the word dictator right next to it?

[Shadaza]

I believe this thread should be locked. Not because the topic is irrelevant but because all this will do is cause a Political argument and I don't think this fits with the tone of this website.

As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

[Boomstick]

Well why just tar Williams? What about McLaren that is actually 50% owned by the goverment of Bahrain?Something called the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company?

...you know that Bahrain place? Riots in the news...erm? F1 race that sucks....kinda now makes sense why the local Government wants a race at all cost!

Hell PDVSA just sponsor Williams, they don't actually own the team.....I think everybody is loosing objectivity here!

[Ferrim]

I used the word 'communist' as a synonym for 'dictator' without actually saying outright that he was a dictator. Because, technically, calling him that would be incorrect, but do you really expect him to relinquish power if he was voted out via election?

Yes. Whatever his wrong doings are, Chávez has not supressed democracy in Venezuela. He's extremely populist and does many "things" to ensure a high popular support for him, but he's already lost a plebiscite about a constitution reform, and the last parliamentary election was pretty close.

[DemocalypseNow]

Well why just tar Williams? What about McLaren that is actually 50% owned by the goverment of Bahrain?Something called the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company?

...you know that Bahrain place? Riots in the news...erm? F1 race that sucks....kinda now makes sense why the local Government wants a race at all cost!

Hell PDVSA just sponsor Williams, they don't actually own the team.....I think everybody is loosing objectivity here!

I was going to mention hostile takeover until remembering McLaren is a LTD and not a PLC, so they MUST have agreed the deal.

[mario]

Well why just tar Williams? What about McLaren that is actually 50% owned by the goverment of Bahrain?Something called the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company?

...you know that Bahrain place? Riots in the news...erm? F1 race that sucks....kinda now makes sense why the local Government wants a race at all cost!

Hell PDVSA just sponsor Williams, they don't actually own the team.....I think everybody is loosing objectivity here!

I was going to mention hostile takeover until remembering McLaren is a LTD and not a PLC, so they MUST have agreed the deal.

As I understand it, the Daimler AG group sold back its shares to McLaren Group, which McLaren then partially sold onto Mumtalakat (Ron Dennis and TAG agreed to purchase about half of Daimer's stake between them, with the remainder going to Mumtalakat). As of the start of this year, Mumtalakat holds 50%, Ron Dennis 25% and TAG 25%, although it seems that Ron and Ojjeh (the owner of TAG) have an agreement to vote together.
Mind you, Mumtalakat has shares in a number of motorsport organisations - they had a 30% stake in the former ART GP (now Lotus GP) in the past, although I am not sure if they still have a stake in the team now. If they did, though, it would be extremely awkward for Jean Todt and the FIA, given that Nicolas Todt still runs that team. It is also somewhat difficult for McLaren Group - barely a few months ago, the Prime Minister spoke about both the McLaren Group and Mumtalakat, praising both of them for investing in the UK's automotive manufacturing division (at the opening of McLaren's new factory IIRC).

I believe this thread should be locked. Not because the topic is irrelevant but because all this will do is cause a Political argument and I don't think this fits with the tone of this website.

As the saying goes, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

For the moment, I am inclined to allow this thread to run its course as the tone is fairly amicable - however, should the conversation start turning more acrimonious, I am prepared to take further action.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Well why just tar Williams? What about McLaren that is actually 50% owned by the goverment of Bahrain?Something called the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company?

...you know that Bahrain place? Riots in the news...erm? F1 race that sucks....kinda now makes sense why the local Government wants a race at all cost!

Hell PDVSA just sponsor Williams, they don't actually own the team.....I think everybody is loosing objectivity here!

I was going to mention hostile takeover until remembering McLaren is a LTD and not a PLC, so they MUST have agreed the deal.

Actually, an LTD can stand for either a Public or Private company so the correct term would be PTY LTD

Thank HWNSNBM for HSC Business Studies

[DemocalypseNow]

Well why just tar Williams? What about McLaren that is actually 50% owned by the goverment of Bahrain?Something called the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company?

...you know that Bahrain place? Riots in the news...erm? F1 race that sucks....kinda now makes sense why the local Government wants a race at all cost!

Hell PDVSA just sponsor Williams, they don't actually own the team.....I think everybody is loosing objectivity here!

I was going to mention hostile takeover until remembering McLaren is a LTD and not a PLC, so they MUST have agreed the deal.

Actually, an LTD can stand for either a Public or Private company so the correct term would be PTY LTD

Thank HWNSNBM for HSC Business Studies

In Australia maybe, but not the United Kingdom. In the UK all private limited companies must use LTD, and all public limited companies must use PLC. I also have a Business Management qualification so...suck it.

[Popi_Larrauri]

Being cast aside of F1 daily news due to personal reasons, this is a topic in which I can give an insight. You'll see: I'm becoming older and south-american as days goes by; both issues could give a dime on this subject.

Thing is that, despite I have my heavy reservations about recommending you to adopt a south-american model, and, in particular to this case venezuelan interventionist model, I have developed a nihilism syndrome, specially when we talk about politics. For this instance, it means that almost every place on earth has its own rotten worms. The matter, maybe, relies on whether this Chavez's government actually works for the better of his population or if the net benefit (every aspect taken into account) goes to someone else (i.e. foreign interest, superpowers, corporations, himself, etc). If anything worries me about Chavez is he act as delusional, in a level that is hard to tolerate, at least in public. Blame the tumor if you want: I heard him talking a huge amount of nonsense as far as 2002, here, in Argentina when he made a visit, to a point that was pitiful to watch.

Just before we start, and for the sake of clarification, Chavez is not communist, and, indeed, we can discuss if he is a socialist. He is, for sure, an interventionist. Either for his own political power or a matter of wealth redistribution is another thing.

I’ve never been at Venezuela, and have no intentions at all to travel there, mainly for the reasons stated above, even if the common tourist would be sheltered from crime rates (I’ve been at far less safer places, as an example, Mexico and Dominicana, and I was safe, in general).

But my nihilism had always made me wonder: Really, after hearing all that ranting about Venezuela (why not Mexico, then?): Where’s the national park where (next to whitest silver unicorn and last panda’s couple) the last remnants of the purest morale are being kept under custody?

What is populism after all? Taking away from corporations and giving to the people for the sake of support at elections? Then the enormous adn obscene bank bailout in 2008 is an act of…. What? Bankism? Which of the two have a moral stand on the other?


Really: The backing for Perez is legitimate because it’s private? Coming from the richest man on earth from a country where narcos really (but, I mean REALLY) run the government and have a word on any deal made every day? It’s morale proven for Sauber being backed by Credit Suisse, which has its own dark stories along the second world war? Volkswagen would be really welcome after using slave labor on WW2 and never ever made a serious regret about it? It’s fine if Oerlikon, a military weapons manufacturer and dealer, supports Sauber in the air intake?

I think there’s a rule of thumb, and it could be this:

Dictatorships or whatever morally despicable (choose your own twisted rules to apply) should back Formula 1 and no one else, trying to prove what we won’t believe nor care no matter how Williams performs: That they are more or less a despicable regime because they have and ad over a side pod in the car that comes home first.

Let them waste money they should have used to buy AK-49s instead. We all know that Maldonado clinching a podium won’t change a heck about it. Then the main concern is “Oh! But, Then… how about this government becoming so popular because of Maldonado clinching a podium under heavy attrition! They’ll look him as a hero!”.

My answer is that lesser “educated” societies (as it is perceived by the western world at least, whatever “educated” would come to mean, and just for giving a name, almost every Muslim country on earth) have mustered pretty good rebellions (at least, in the noise generated) and had nothing to do with F1 teams or drivers under performing. In fact, this more "educated" western hemisphere elite had found quite fast that social networking was the real problem and are trying to deal with the issue as fast as hell. SOPA anyone?

Those: the despicable and irredeemable ones and corporations. Petrol companies wrestling scientific data on global warming; tobacco companies that gave society nothing but lung cancer, weapons dealers that provide every African tribe or faction, it doesn’t matter. Let them waste money, directly or indirectly, on finding a 2% edge on the center of gravity of an F1 chassis, data that will be of no use for them next year. Let them pay salaries in the process and gave us, for once, a brake.

[Phoenix]

After reading debates like this, I've adopted a clear morale stance: let things fall by his own weight. Let nature do its thing. You're never going to find a clear solution. Mankind is like this, like it or not. So let nature sort it out. Let Hugo Chávez die of cancer and see what happens next... It may be better or worse, but it'll be different one way or another.

[DanielPT]

After reading debates like this, I've adopted a clear morale stance: let things fall by his own weight. Let nature do its thing. You're never going to find a clear solution. Mankind is like this, like it or not. So let nature sort it out. Let Hugo Chávez die of cancer and see what happens next... It may be better or worse, but it'll be different one way or another.

I am sorry, mate, to throw some dirt into your clear morale stance.

By letting Hugo Chavez die of cancer your are not letting nature to completely do its thing. You have the means to at least try to cure him from it and choosing not to is deliberately intervene on his fate. It is like if you had decided to kill him slowly. And deciding to kill him is far from letting the nature sort it out. The clear stance is to try and cure his cancer. There are some odds and you do your best, so it is up to 'nature' to either kill him or to cure him. I can reason like this because, with the current methods to cure cancer available, humanity doesn't really know how many factors are involved in this process. The only thing we know is that by applying those methods some people are cured and others die. The moment you know which cases can survive before treating, you lose your power of choice unless its treatable and you chose not to, which leads me back to the starting point of my post: You are not letting things fall by its own weight!

[Phoenix]

After reading debates like this, I've adopted a clear morale stance: let things fall by his own weight. Let nature do its thing. You're never going to find a clear solution. Mankind is like this, like it or not. So let nature sort it out. Let Hugo Chávez die of cancer and see what happens next... It may be better or worse, but it'll be different one way or another.

I am sorry, mate, to throw some dirt into your clear morale stance.

By letting Hugo Chavez die of cancer your are not letting nature to completely do its thing. You have the means to at least try to cure him from it and choosing not to is deliberately intervene on his fate. It is like if you had decided to kill him slowly. And deciding to kill him is far from letting the nature sort it out. The clear stance is to try and cure his cancer. There are some odds and you do your best, so it is up to 'nature' to either kill him or to cure him. I can reason like this because, with the current methods to cure cancer available, humanity doesn't really know how many factors are involved in this process. The only thing we know is that by applying those methods some people are cured and others die. The moment you know which cases can survive before treating, you lose your power of choice unless its treatable and you chose not to, which leads me back to the starting point of my post: You are not letting things fall by its own weight!

The thing is, doctors are already trying to cure him and yet it's believed he might be in terminal state. I don't really wish Hugo Chávez to die of cancer, it's just the most likely situation. What I meant is, one way or another, mistakes get redressed at one point, either by improving things or by making them disappear. Either people or nature take care of this. If Chávez does survive, all the mistakes he makes will take its toll sooner or later, and if not, well, he's bound to die one day. Problem is, solutions always create a trouble, which is bound to be resolved one day, and this ad infinitum.

What I try to say is, relax and enjoy the positives of life And when I say "letting things fall by its own weight", I include things as varied as people's individual attitude and things beyond our control. All in all, it's too complex to be put into words.

[jackanderton]

Chavez' problem like so many others is that he never understood when to leave, or established a chain of succession that was democractic and didn't involve him. Ego as usual.

However, you should remember that he was deposed in a CIA backed right-wing coup, and has otherwise been elected (fairly) on a number of occasions before and since. You can also point to many positive stats regarding his government- especially levels of poverty and education. If it's what the people want.......