Latest F1 news in brief – Wednesday (Update – Gossage vs. Ecclestone)
Eddie Gossage, president and general manager at the speedway, had hit out at the scheduling of this year's Grand Prix which takes place on the same weekend that his track hosts all three NASCAR series including the Sprint Cup's AAA Texas 500. Gossage was also critical of Circuit of the America bosses for their failure to stand up to Ecclestone in terms of the scheduling of the race.
However, never one to shy away from a row, Ecclestone wasted no time in responding to Gossage's comments.
"We've a small problem they don't have… we have six jumbo jets to move around all our equipment, and we have to find the most sensible way to use them to do that," he said, according to the Guardian. "We have to be efficient, and bear in mind we may also encounter problems at an airport. There are issues that can occur, but he and other people do not realize these things.
"The race prior to the one in the US is in Russia, in Sochi," he continued. "We've never been before, and we have to get out of there and into Austin. That is probably a lot easier than trying to get into Brazil, and then we have to get out of there to go to Abu Dhabi. So he is extremely lucky he doesn't have to do what we have to do."
Responding to Gossage's claim that "there is an 800-pound gorilla when it comes to major American motor sports… NASCAR", and that "any time you cut something into two pieces, whether it's 50/50, 60/40 or 99/1, it doesn't matter who's got the 99 and who's got the 1 it's less than 100 percent", Ecclestone said: "I've spoken to the people that run the race at COTA and they believe the NASCAR crowd is a different crowd to Formula One, different people, different customers.
"At the end of the day they run a domestic series in America… we run a world championship."
Ouch!
02/26/14
-
Mercedes know they may win all the F1 races in 2014. 2014 will not be the year they crown a driver champion in F1. 2014 will be the year they crown the Mercedes' engineers as champions Humility not jubilation says Mercedes' Wolff
- Marko not sure Red Bull crisis near end
- Pic admits Caterham axe 'a surprise'
- US track boss says Ecclestone 'foolish'
- Alonso, Raikkonen will follow 'rules' – Domenicali
- Lotus hopes Renault can power winning car
- F1 fixes taking 'four times longer' in 2014
- InstaForex increases its commitment to the Marussia F1 Team
- Williams' Pat Symonds says their new FW36 has 'run like a dream'
- Now is the time for an F1 revolution
- Why Bernie Ecclestone may be telling the truth
'Humility not jubilation' says Mercedes' Wolff
(GMM) Amid claims Mercedes is the overwhelming 2014 favorite, boss Toto Wolff says the Brackley team is heading into the season with "humility".
Admitting he is "cautiously optimistic", Wolff told the German news agency DPA he is sure that if Mercedes has a big advantage now, it will not last long.
"We are very aware that Ferrari and the Renault teams will come back. It is only a matter of time and I don't doubt that for a second," said Wolff.
He said world champions Red Bull and Sebastian Vettel in particular – despite their huge problems with the Renault-powered RB10 – cannot be ruled out.
"This team (Red Bull) has won the world championship four times and has one of the best drivers in the field," said Wolff.
But he agreed that, in total contrast, Mercedes has had a fairly smooth winter despite the massive challenge of the all-new 2014 rules.
Wolff insisted: "Humility is the word that comes to mind. There have been many 'test world champions' in the past."
And he said even the dominant Mercedes W05 has not been perfect.
"The issue of reliability is far from solved," said Wolff. "I assume that the first issue has to be getting to the end of the race.
"We have had some good tests but we have no reason to fall into jubilation," the 42-year-old added.
Marko not sure Red Bull crisis near end
(GMM) After the dizzying heights of utter domination late last season, Red Bull finds itself in deep crisis just two weeks before the 2014 opener.
Not only has the new RB10 struggled merely for laps amid engine supplier Renault's obvious problems, the Adrian Newey-penned car has also been slow.
In an analysis, Speed Week found that if the times in Bahrain testing last week was actually qualifying in Melbourne, both Sebastian Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo would have failed to meet the 107 per cent qualifying rule.
"We are in complex difficulties," Red Bull's Dr Helmut Marko admitted to Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper. "We can solve it only in conjunction with Renault.
"Unfortunately, we are going from problem to problem and are clearly behind schedule."
The reigning world champions only have four more official test days, in Bahrain this week beginning on Thursday, to prepare for the Melbourne season opener.
Asked if the problems can be solved by then, Marko answered: "That is open and cannot be predicted.
"We will have developments in Bahrain for the third test but, as I said, everything is very complex."
Marko said it is not the first time Red Bull could head into a new season without having even completed a single race distance with its new car.
"Yes, we've had that once, but I repeat: we cannot hang our heads," he insisted. "We need to look and think ahead."
Pic admits Caterham axe 'a surprise'
(GMM) Charles Pic has admitted being dropped by Caterham ahead of the 2014 season was "a surprise".
In the wake of the blow, the Frenchman will try to put his race aspirations back on track for 2015 by testing this year for the Lotus team.
"I'll have days of private testing as well as free practice sessions," he told the French-language F1i.
"All I can say is it will be a good number of Fridays and the right number of test days. I'll let the team say more but I think it is a very good program for me."
Pic, 24, admitted it was a challenge to put the Lotus program together after being told his services were no longer required at Caterham.
"Their (Caterham's) decision was taken very late, and I still had a contract running for 2014. So it was difficult to bounce back from that," he said.
"So, yes, it was a surprise.
"On the other hand, I am very happy to have found this solution with Lotus. It was important to find a third driver role that allowed me to drive a lot, and this is the case with Lotus, a super team. I am very happy," he said.
Pic admitted however that his real ambition is to return to the grid in 2015.
"Of course," he said, "but I think we should do everything in its time. When we approach the end of the summer, that will be the time to start looking around for 2015."
US track boss says Ecclestone 'foolish'
(GMM) An American motor racing personality has accused F1's Bernie Ecclestone of being repeatedly "foolish".
Eddie Gossage, the president of the Texas Motor Speedway, has blasted the F1 chief executive for scheduling this year's US grand prix on the same November date as the major Nascar sprint cup race in the same state.
"I absolutely think it's foolish," Gossage is quoted by AP news agency.
"I can't say I was surprised because Bernie Ecclestone does a lot of foolish things," he said.
"It's just not smart," said Gossage. "There's 52 weeks in the year. But that was the only weekend that formula one could make it work in Austin? Give me a break." Why can't Gossage move his NASCAR date? He's just as arrogant. The Formula One group knows that NASCAR is a mighty force in this part of the world, but clearly believes that the audience is different. Last year F1 was in Austin, up against a major college football game and everyone did fine.
What Gossage also forgets is that scheduling F1 is not easy because they are far more factors involved than scheduling in the homogenous world of NASCAR, where dates can easily change. F1 has to take into account complex factors that NASCAR does not even need to consider. Global sporting events, holidays, climatic differences from region to region and the logistical logic that F1 uses to get the circus from A to B every 10 days.
Alonso, Raikkonen will follow 'rules' – Domenicali
(GMM) Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen have been told to follow "the rules" at Ferrari.
That is the claim of the fabled Italian outfit's boss Stefano Domenicali, after months of speculation the two world champions will struggle to harmoniously coexist in 2014.
"They both have the desire to win," Domenicali told Italy's Sky.
"But both of them also know that when you race for Ferrari you need to follow the rules of the team that I have the honor to represent," he added.
Lotus hopes Renault can power winning car
(GMM) Lotus is pinning its high hopes for 2014 on trouble engine supplier Renault.
Technical boss Nick Chester is confident the Enstone team has produced a winning car, with respected Auto Motor und Sport correspondent Michael Schmidt agreeing the double-tusked E22 is the most "courageous" in the field.
"The wind tunnel numbers are incredible," Chester is quoted by the German magazine.
"Our measurements at the test in Bahrain have confirmed that we have a really fast car."
He said Lotus' biggest concern is that Renault might be unable to resolve its obvious technical crisis with the new French-made V6 'power unit'.
"It would be a pity," said Chester, "if the engine is what determines the order on the track."
The most noticeable innovation aboard the E22 is the asymmetrical, tuning fork-style double-tusk nose, which has attracted envious glances up and down pitlane.
Chester said: "The other teams could copy it, but that alone won't help them much.
"If they want to take advantage of the (double) nose then they'd also have to change the rear of the car. And that would take them a lot of time," he warned.
"Some engineers left us last year taking the knowledge of the benefits (of the nose) to our competitors, but I imagine they had difficulty passing the crash tests," said Chester.
F1 fixes taking 'four times longer' in 2014
(GMM) Fixing technical problems is taking mechanics up to four times longer than usual in F1's new turbo V6 era.
Writing in the Spanish sports daily Marca, Marco Canseco said the issue is so significant that a breakdown on the Saturday morning of a race weekend could mean the car is still not repaired by the time of the qualifying hour.
"Repair processes have at times been multiplied by four," said Canseco, referring to the multitude of breakdowns seen so far at the Jerez and Bahrain tests.
"If replacing a gearbox used to take an hour, we can now be talking about four. In the case of an engine, we can be talking about seven hours," he added.
Ferrari's Pat Fry is quoted as saying: "The cars are very complicated and it can take a while to just get in there and find the problem."
And a Toro Rosso mechanic told Marca: "The problem is that with the new power units, everything is packaged within millimeters.
"To find a faulty sensor that meant you stopped the car as a precaution can mean dismantling half the engine. Access is really complicated," he added.
InstaForex increases its commitment to the Marussia F1 Team
The Marussia F1 Team is pleased to announce the continuation and development of its relationship with Russian Forex broker, InstaForex, which has traded up to Official Partner status for the 2014 season.
For InstaForex, which joined the Team’s portfolio of Partners in 2013, the relationship with the Marussia F1 Team is now a key element of the company’s marketing strategy, placing particular emphasis on key markets such as Russia and Malaysia and their associated Grand Prix events.
For 2014, the InstaForex brand mark will appear on the drivers’ racesuits, Team apparel and within the Team’s trackside environment and peripherals. There will be an enhanced presence for the Malaysia Grand Prix in March, and also the inaugural Russian Grand Prix, which takes place in Sochi in October.
Andy Webb, CEO, Marussia F1 Team
"It is always very pleasing to see one of our existing sponsors expanding their relationship with the Marussia F1 Team, underpinning one of our key strengths, which has been to retain valued partnerships. InstaForex are heavily involved in sports sponsorship and over the past 12 months they have added Formula 1 to that portfolio of interest and engagement, and reaped the benefit of collaboration with a team that is able to offer tailor-made solutions to satisfying marketing objectives. We are particularly pleased that we will be able to celebrate with InstaForex, a Russian company, the occasion of Russia’s first Grand Prix together later in the year. We are optimistic for the season ahead and look forward to sharing the experience of such an exciting and interesting period for the sport with existing and new partners."
Dmitriy Savchenko, Executive Director, InstaForex
"The cooperation with the Marussia F1 Team is a landmark strategic development for InstaForex. Our partnership has contributed greatly to meeting our organizational goals, such as brand awareness and increasing our global outreach. However, the main benefit from the relationship is something which can't have ROI and can't be measured financially – the opportunity to share the excitement and energy of Formula one with our clients and employees. Therefore we are absolutely delighted to announce an extension of the partnership with the Marussia F1 Team. We are certain that, together, we can provide a great experience to enhance our valued customer relationships. And, of course, it is particularly exciting to be partnering with a Russian-owned team at the time of the inaugural Russian Grand Prix, which will take place in Sochi in October. I'm sure the Marussia F1 Team and InstaForex will find interesting ways to please the fans and our clients during that event, and hopefully during the rest of the season."
Williams' Pat Symonds says their new FW36 has 'run like a dream'
Williams Chief Technical Officer Pat Symonds says the team's new FW36 car, powered by a Mercedes power unit, has 'run like a dream' during pre-season testing.
Although the team's fastest time at the first Bahrain test was four seconds slower than that of pace-setter Nico Rosberg in the Mercedes, the Grove outfit have demonstrated the impressive reliability of their new runner, completing more laps than any other team last week.
Despite a tough 2013, finishing ninth in the Constructors' Championship, optimism is high at the Oxfordshire-based team and new recruit Pat Symonds, following his winter move from Marussia, was eager to remind their rivals of the strength of this year's new Williams.
"One thing we are very proud of at Williams is that we are the only team that has gone through winter testing without causing a red flag – we haven't stopped on the track once and that's a real testament to the design, the build and the quality that's gone into the car," Symonds told Sky Sports F1.
"We totally lost a day at the beginning through this wiring problem which was part of the fuel system electronics, but after that the car has run like a dream."
What's clear is that the team have adapted quickly to the challenges posed by the new regulation changes for 2014, and the team's ability to merge the new Mercedes-based power unit suggests the team could be the new dark horses of 2014.
"With the complexity of the power trains we're using in 2014, we've all got to learn a little bit more, we've got to reprogram the diagnostic part of our brains to understand these systems," added Symonds.
"We're very happy with what we've got there, it's a complex unit, it's a work of art to an engineer. It really has run very reliably for us. It's got plenty of power, it's got great torque. It really is a real tribute to them.
"I think this is the biggest season-to-season changes. People have had troubles but some haven't. I think Formula One needs to be at the forefront [of new technology], it shouldn't be easy, we're constructors and that's what differentiates Formula One and part of the DNA of Formula One is to have technical leadership and to be on the edge of technology."
Pressed on whether the team can challenge for race victories this season, Symonds was keen to suggest pragmatism still remained embedded within the team.
"Well I certainly hope so. Challenging for wins is a really difficult thing to do. It's intensely competitive, the rate of progress is just relentless, we're pushing as hard as we can but we don't expect overnight miracles.
"Things are looking good, yes, we're on the up but let's just keep working and the results will come.''
The third and final test of the winter, which will also be staged in Bahrain, starts on Thursday. Sky Sports
Now is the time for an F1 revolution
The highly respected and influential monthly Motor Sport magazine is presenting a radical new vision for the future of Formula 1.
The April issue – on sale Thursday 27 February priced at £4.99 – features a striking graphic of Bernie Ecclestone with strong echoes of Jim Fitzpatrick’s famous sixties poster of revolutionary Che Guevara which has become an iconic symbol of rebellion. The accompanying cover lines are every bit as arresting – they read: ‘Ecclestone’s in the Dock and on the Rocks… Time for a Formula 1 Revolution’.
Faced with an ageing audience, a growing number of teams mired in financial difficulties and increasing predictability, Motor Sport’s esteemed new Grand Prix editor, Mark Hughes, writes ‘the revolution is long overdue’.
In his first major feature for the magazine, Hughes not only argues that F1 is in urgent need of systematic changes but also puts forward his own in-depth propositions for a new ‘cutting edge sport for pure racers, perfectly configured for the 21st century’.
The magazine’s far-reaching proposals include:
• Restructuring of the sport’s finances to give F1 teams more return combined with the Introduction of a budget cap. This would make F1 teams less beholden to demands from commercial partners thus removing the need for technical sterilization of the sport and pay drivers
• Opening out the technical regulations to allow for greater competitive volatility
• A reduced 15-round F1 calendar with grands prix only staged in countries with strong F1 fan base
• Reducing fees charged to circuit promoters staging grands prix, thus reducing ticket prices
• The re-introduction of a tire war to generate more unpredictability
• The end of codified driver penalties to encourage real racing
• The removal of all pits-to-driver communications
• Banning team PRs from circuits to encourage freedom of speech and personalities to flourish
• Capped costs feeder formulae with chassis engineering freedom
In the April issue of Motor Sport, Hughes states that greed has damaged the sport, turning what was once ‘a vibrant, vivid, alive, unsettled and exciting environment where anything might happen into a predictable, codified template of commercial success where everything is uniform and conforming to the consensus’. He calls for what he terms as the ‘punkish’ element to be put back into F1 thus creating an environment of ‘constant radical change, often rebellious and unbeholden to big business’.
To achieve this Motor Sport reasons that every aspect of the sport – commercial, technical and human – needs to be addressed.
It demands that the FIA world governing body revisits the commercial ownership which currently sees 40 per cent of the annual estimated $1.5bn revenue lining the pockets of private equity investors rather than helping to make the sport self-sustaining. Hughes says: ‘The sport should be owned by the participants, not a third party that essentially rapes it’. To achieve this, the article maintains the FIA needs to unstitch the controversial 100-year deal that saw its previous president, Max Mosley, sell the commercial rights to Ecclestone for a paltry fee of $360 million – a similar sum to that paid for NASCAR’s commercial rights for just one year.
On the technical front, Motor Sport proposes retaining the new breed of hybrid engines but removing many of the limitations thus giving engineers greater freedom to create more unpredictability. It also calls for a radical rethink on aerodynamics – together with the possible abolition of wings – to increase overtaking without the need for artificial aids such as DRS. In addition, Hughes promotes the reintroduction of rival tire companies to create further volatility while drivers should be encouraged to race and not penalized for over-commitment. Technical freedoms should also be extended into lower feeder formulae to fuel new engineering blood.
Switching to the human aspect, Hughes contends ‘F1 drivers have been tamed’, turned from ‘adrenalin junkies’ into highly scrutinized corporate ‘employees’. In his vision he wants to see them have far more inspirational roles. Drivers and team members should be free to speak their mind with team PRs banished from the F1 paddock. When it comes to the races all pits-to-driver communications – including pit boards – should be banned putting more onus back onto drivers to make their own decisions.
“The future of F1 has never been more uncertain and there’s a very real danger we’re heading into the chaos of a post-Ecclestone wasteland," warned Damien Smith, editor of Motor Sport. “Everyone working in F1 – and that includes those of us at Motor Sport – owes Bernie a huge debt of gratitude as it was he who first turned this sport into a global phenomenon. More recently, though, his controlling influence has squeezed the spontaneity out of F1 and we firmly believe his time is past. As our readers can find out for themselves, now really is the right time for a revolution."
Boasting the most experienced and informed editorial team in F1, Motor Sport always provides unrivalled in-depth coverage and opinion on grand prix racing past, present and future. Alongside the major ‘Revolution’ feature, the latest April issue puts the spotlight on the return of Ron Dennis – and the real story behind his F1 exile – as well as a special tribute to American racer Peter Revson who died 40 years ago.
Why Bernie Ecclestone may be telling the truth
Bernie Ecclestone is almost certainly the sharpest operator in Formula One. Over nearly 40 years he has built up the sport into the global phenomenon that it is today. He is responsible for almost all the key commercial milestones in its history from introducing on-board cameras to expansion into Asian nations. Ecclestone has made an estimated $4bn from F1 and remained in the driving seat despite it changing hands over five times.
Last Thursday a judge in London's High Court ruled that Ecclestone paid a $44m bribe in connection with the sale of F1 in 2006 so you would have thought it must have given him a tremendous advantage, especially since he is famous for counting every penny. However, according to the court judgment, it seems that this is far from the case.
No sooner had the judgment been released last week than reports about it began to flood the media. At 105 pages it is no surprise that the writers of the initial reports did not have enough time to read the document in full. As a result of this, the vast majority of the reports about it over the past few days have focused on the same points – the verdict itself and the judge's description of Ecclestone.
Pitpass readers expect more than that so we took our time with our analysis. As the initial storm of identikit coverage has now passed it puts more of a spotlight on our analysis which makes it all the more important for it to be carefully considered. Let's start with the background.
At the heart of the High Court case was a payment of $44m by Ecclestone and his Bambino family trust to Gerhard Gribkowsky, former chief risk officer for German bank BayernLB (BLB). Gribkowsky was in charge of selling a 47.2% stake in F1 owned by BLB and in 2006 this was bought by the private equity firm CVC for $814m. JP Morgan and Lehman Brothers – two other banks which owned stakes in F1 – followed suit and CVC ended up with control of F1. CVC insisted that Ecclestone had to stay as F1's boss which led to accusations that it was his preferred bidder and that his payment to Gribkowsky was a bribe to ensure that the stake was sold to the private equity firm.
This accusation was made in the High Court lawsuit which was brought against Ecclestone, Gribkowsky, Bambino and its former lawyer Stephen Mullens by German media rights firm Constantin Medien. It claimed to have lost out as a result of the alleged bribe because it had an agreement with BLB which entitled it to 10% of the proceeds if the F1 stake sold for more than $1.1bn. As CVC paid less than this Constantin was not paid at all. However, it believes that if Ecclestone had not engineered the sale to CVC then other buyers would have come forward and paid enough to give it a share in the proceeds.
Ecclestone strongly denies that the $44m was a bribe and, as Pitpass revealed way back in July 2011, he says Gribkowsky threatened to make unfounded allegations about his tax affairs if the money was not paid.
Last week the High Court judge ruled in Ecclestone's favor so commiserations are in order for Constantin and Keith Oliver, the head of commercial litigation for its lawyers Peters and Peters. Constantin will not only have to cover its own costs but also those of the defendants which have accelerated to more than £20m as Pitpass has reported today.
Shortly after the judgment was announced Oliver released a statement saying that "the Judge ruled against Constantin essentially on technical grounds (including extremely complicated questions of German law which is the governing law in the case) and Constantin will be appealing those findings."
Oliver's statement also pointed out that although Ecclestone won the case, the judge's ruling contained a damning description of him which said he could not regard him as a reliable or truthful witness. He also ruled that "the Payments were a bribe" which in turn fuelled doom-mongering reports saying that Ecclestone is on the verge of being forced out of his job by CVC.
Sports reporters have been predicting Ecclestone's exit for more than a decade. Indeed, precisely a decade ago, Bambino lost a court case brought by BLB, JP Morgan and Lehman Brothers which led to similar headlines such as ‘Ecclestone loses sole F1 control.'
You would have thought that the reporters would have longer memories but the predictions of doom haven't done Ecclestone any harm as he loves proving the critics wrong. He is still at the wheel and, although you wouldn't realize it from reading some of the negative coverage, he has triumphed in all of the court cases which have been brought so far in connection with the alleged bribe.
In addition to the failed claim from Constantin, American investment fund Bluewaters sued Ecclestone in New York after it claimed it was the highest bidder for the F1 stake but was rejected by Gribkowsky. As Pitpass revealed the judge ruled that Bluewaters had not provided proof of its higher bid and prevented the case from proceeding.
The recent reports about Ecclestone's supposedly imminent exit seized on comments given to the High Court by CVC co-founder Donald Mackenzie in November. He said that "if it is proven that Mr. Ecclestone has done anything that is criminally wrong, we would fire him." However, it clearly does not apply to last week's verdict because it was a civil, not a criminal, case.
The practical implication of it being a civil case is that the judge arrived at his conclusions on the balance of probabilities meaning that he believes it is more probable than not that Ecclestone paid a bribe and is unreliable. However, on the criminal standard that Mackenzie was referring to, conclusions are reached if they are beyond reasonable doubt meaning that they are as good as certain.
The allegation that Gribkowsky received a bribe is due to be tested under this higher standard in April in a criminal trial against Ecclestone in Germany. If Ecclestone loses that then he could face a prison sentence which would obviously prevent him from running F1.
It allows CVC to defer the decision over Ecclestone's fate to a German judge who would have all the facts at his fingertips. It is another reason why it is highly unlikely that CVC will eject Ecclestone on the basis of last week's verdict.
More to the point, deep scrutiny of the ruling seems to reveal some severe contradictions. The judge found it impossible to regard Ecclestone as a reliable or truthful witness but he still ruled in his favor. So although the judge didn't agree with Ecclestone's explanation for the $44m payment, he also disagreed with Constantin's claim that its purpose was to undervalue the stake in F1. So why did he judge think that the money was paid?
The judge ruled that "Mr. Ecclestone's aim was, I think, to be rid of the Banks. He was strongly averse to their involvement in the Formula One group and was keen that their shares should be transferred to someone more congenial to him."
This doesn't seem to make sense because two of the banks – JP Morgan and Lehman Brothers – are still involved in the Formula One group as shareholders to this day as they reinvested in it after CVC took control. If Ecclestone was so "strongly averse to their involvement" that he paid a $44m bribe with Bambino to get rid of the banks then he didn't get his money's worth because they came back. What would be the point in paying $44m to get rid of the banks only to find that the door was open for them to return? It would be a pretty bad bribe.
There has been no indication over the past seven years that Ecclestone is "strongly averse" to the banks being involved in F1 so perhaps the judge was referring specifically to BLB. This doesn't seem to be the case, as he used the word "banks" in the plural, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
The problem with this theory is that BLB too had the opportunity to reinvest in F1 and, what's more, Gribkowsky tried to convince them to do so. Remarkably, the judge accepted this in his evidence as he said "BLB also had the chance to reinvest, but chose not to take it, and the evidence indicates that this was a decision taken against Dr Gribkowsky's wishes rather than because of them." At a later point in the ruling the judge adds that BLB's decision not to reinvest in F1 "ran contrary to Dr Gribkowsky's preference."
The upshot is that the judge would have us believe that Ecclestone disliked BLB so much that he paid millions to Gribkowsky to ensure that the bank left F1 but then didn't prevent Gribkowsky from recommending the bank to return. The fact that Gribkowsky recommended BLB to reinvest in F1 clearly contradicts the theory that he was paid a $44m bribe to get rid of the bank. Either it was the world's worst bribe or it was not a bribe at all. Pitpass