there are endless headlines about "grok apologizes" or "grok says it will be fixed" after it generated CSAM using pictures of minors and zero headlines about "grok being shut down" or "musk and xAI in big legal trouble" and I think something fundamental has broken here
what happens when the media elite are addicted to a machine generating child porn
Jeremy Clarkson complains about no village Doctor, no village shops, no village schools, no bobby.
This is the same Jeremy Clarkson who loves Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron who made all these things happen with their cuts.
They love complaining about what they voted for.
Loupis is a pro-Russian disinformation agent and a massive idiot, but this highlights Elon Musk’s hypocrisy:
Free speech for him and his supporters, none for those who disagree with him
Looks similar to MK1 Micra?
You’re right. XI lists the sanctions available, and does not include retroactive cancellation of an event. ISC gives jurisdiction to punish acts prejudicial to the competition,but remedies are limited to those listed.So annulment wasn’t available in 2008 Code, which is why Singapore stood.
Well 153 lists penalties on competitors. It doesn’t exhaust FIA’s powers.Jurisdiction comes 151(c) which defines acts prejudicial to the competition itself. That’s why Singapore was handled via sanctions, not annulment. Saying the FIA can’t annul isn’t stated either. Regs separate power from remedy.
You're incorrect. The Code defines offences and grants sanctioning discretion, it doesn’t exhaustively list every remedy. ISC Art. 151(c) establishes jurisdiction over acts prejudicial to the competition. How that power is exercised is discretionary. That’s black letter regulatory law, not opinion.
You’re right that the Code doesn’t use the words “cancel the event”. That’s not how it’s drafted. 151(c) gives the FIA authority for acts prejudicial to the competition, with sanctions at its discretion. Annulment or exclusion flows from that authority. Absence of explicit wording ≠ lack of power.
It’s International Sporting Code Art. 151(c) (2008). It covers “any act prejudicial to the interests of the competition” and gives the FIA disciplinary authority over results. F1 regs incorporate the ISC, so this is the governing clause for Singapore 2008.
Id say the power comes from the International Sporting Code. In 2008 it was Art. 151(c) now Art. 12.2.1.c, covering acts prejudicial to the competition or bringing the sport into disrepute. This grants
FIA discretion to annul results when sporting integrity is compromised.
You’re still flattening everything into “cheating is cheating”, which just isn’t how the regs work.Illegal parts or opportunistic incidents affect performance. Deliberately causing a safety car corrupts the race mechanism itself and impacts every competitor.That’s why it’s treated differently.
Renault accepted the FIA findings and sanctions. Whether you label that an “admission” or not, the offence was formally established and punished.No other examples you cite involved a proven, premeditated plan to trigger race control. That’s why the distinction is narrow and deliberate, not arbitrary
Well, Renault admitted the offence to the FIA after investigation. Briatore and Symonds were sanctioned, the team accepted guilt and received a suspended ban. Alonso’s knowledge is irrelevant to if the race was manipulated. Comparing admitted race fixing to technical illegality is false equivalence.
Thats your opinion sure. Spa 2008 was a stewarding judgement call applied under the regs, right or wrong. Singapore was a proven, deliberate manipulation that engineered race control intervention. Conflating debatable penalties with admitted cheating is the error at the heart of this whole argument.
Fair enough. We clearly disagree on where sporting integrity is drawn. I’m comfortable with the distinction I’ve made. Enjoy the rest of your evening.
That’s exactly the point. The cheating creates a governance failure because race control is forced to act on a false premise. You can’t separate the act from its regulatory consequence. Once officials intervene on manufactured conditions, the event’s sporting validity is gone.
Happens to me as I get older. Valerian tablet is useful.
If you think a team deliberately engineering a safety car isn’t a governance failure, that pretty much explains why we’re talking past each other. Fair enough to leave it there.
Agreed, they’re not the same. My point was simply that both show how championship outcomes can hinge on governance failures, just with different mechanisms. Happy to leave it there 👍
No, you’ve just conflated two very different things. In 2008 the race director applied the regs correctly to a fabricated incident. In 2021 the regs themselves were misapplied. Same outcome distortion, different failure modes. Precision matters, even when your sarcasm’s easier.
Right, so deliberately crashing a car to force race control into deploying a safety car somehow isn’t external interference, it’s just “things happening”. The decisions were regulatory, the trigger wasn’t. Pretending all cheating is identical is convenient, not rigorous.
Ah yes, because deliberately manufacturing a safety car is just the same as a fuel irregularity or a parc fermé breach. Obviously. The regs do distinguish between routine competitor infringements and external interference with race control. Pretending they don’t is the real absurdity here.
You keep framing this as outcome shopping. The regs don’t say a manipulated event must stand to protect optics. Once the mechanism of the race is corrupted, the result loses sporting validity. Disqualifying the offender punishes behaviour; excluding a tainted event addresses competitive integrity.
You’re reversing cause and effect. The integrity was compromised the moment a race was deliberately manipulated,not when that manipulation is acknowledged.
Excluding a corrupted event isn’t bending outcomes to preference, it’s refusing to legitimise a breach that already tainted the championship.
Integrity isn’t about perfectly undoing downstream effects.
It’s about not enshrining a knowingly corrupted event in the record. Subsequent races are always contingent, but the regs deal with breaches at event level. Otherwise any manipulation becomes untouchable once the calendar moves on.
Disqualifying the cheater preserves regulatory integrity, not sporting integrity. Once the offence deliberately induces race control intervention, the competitive order is already corrupted for everyone else. DSQ alone punishes the guilty party, but it doesn’t restore a compromised event.
