After hearing a brief thing on the news regarding a Supreme Court decision regarding Minardi and subsequently, the FIA not being happy about it; I went into further detail to find out what it was all about. It turns out it seems much worse than what I initially thought it would be...

Press Release from http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/March/050305-01.html...

Yesterday, a Judge in Melbourne issued an injunction ordering that two cars be allowed to run in Saturday’s practice sessions notwithstanding that they did not comply with the regulations for the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship. The team concerned subsequently announced that it had withdrawn the proceedings and presented cars which complied.

The Stewards of the Australian Grand Prix and the FIA were given no notice of these proceedings and were given no opportunity to be present when the Judge heard the case. A hearing which the FIA could attend was scheduled for 1415 hrs after the sessions had taken place.

Apparently the Judge thought it right to interfere with the running of a major sporting event, overrule the duly appointed international officials and compel the governing body to allow cars to participate in breach of the international regulations, all this without first hearing both sides of the case.

If Australian laws and procedures do indeed allow a Judge to act in this way, it will be for the World Motor Sport Council to decide if a World Championship motor sport event of any kind can ever again be held in Australia.


This doesn't sound good guys

yeh i heard this on the news too... bit of a worry, personally as much as its good to have minardi racing, theres no way a judge should overrule the FIAs rules, they are there for a reason and really, how great is the judge's knowledge of the F1 world, compared to the FIA??

I dont think that Mr Paul Minardi himself would of seen this sort of outcome from such a small issue of a few signatures. When Paul first started organising the signatures to have his cars fitted with the 2004 config, some of the first dates were as far back as September 2004.

Why would he getting signatures that far back??? And why wouldnt you just comply and have the cars set up for the 2005 rules...Very Strange.

Just FIA having a sook - boohoohoo - give the baby a dummy will ya?

I can't see this being taken seriously. Australia stripped of the right to hold the GP? Not likely. Just trying scare tactics to make sure nobody else tries the same thing.

Anyway - F1 - the realm of the overtly rich. Why would we care anyway? Absolutely NO RELEVANCE to any of the cars we drive or love so well! (there - I've said it - that should add some controversy to the mix! )

The F1 was really dissapointing. I was bored shitless. It was good not see a ferrari win but at the same time the qualifying was absolutely ridiculous, but sort of entertainin as well. Webber was a dissapointment, I cant see any reason why he shouldnt have got a podium (no ferraris or mclarens at the point end to stop him, he will never get such an opportunity again). Schumacher was obviously unlucky but at the same time I felt it was bad sportsmanship (but a result of extremely poor rules from the FIA) that he simply pulled into the pits when he realised he was going no where (he gets a new engine next race).

And those rules!! They are crap. Tyres are half the fun of any race meeting in the pits, the engine rule will mean anyone outside of the top 8 will mysteriously pull into the pits on the last lap, counting as a DNF and a new engine for the next round. And the amount of money in the F1 is really really frustrating, they spend about 30 times less in the V8's and, yep you guessed it, its heaps better and much much much more profitable (in terms of % of money made on investment).