Actions speak louder than words. Is the sport really alert to social inequality and injustice?
Over the past five years, objective truth has been under attack. Public discourse has been poisoned by rancid rhetoric that has no correlation to truth and reality. This dumbing down of debate and discussion has numbed the nation of credible conversation. Divisions have opened between fact and fiction. Emotions can be hypnotic; they have potency and a tendency to override logic. These consuming feelings deflect the evidence of your eyes and ears.
Whereas facts are more complex to comprehend, they speak a truth that may be hard to hear. This destabilising conflict between fact and fiction fragments relatives, friends and colleagues. The roots of this populism took hold in the country with the European Union referendum in June 2016. The Leave campaigns were counterfeit, with nefarious intentions from the outset. The figureheads want to usher a low tax, low regulation political project in Britain. Brexit was the smokescreen.
But the duplicity can be exposed and dispelled. One common Euromyth told is that the EU has banned bendy bananas. It’s utter bilge. This mistruth was made up by none other than Charlatan-in-Chief Boris Johnson the blunder bus himself. The phrase "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes" has pertinence here. These snippets of indoctrination distort what’s true from what’s false. Misinformation creates confusion.
Debunking arrant nonsense is routine for me. You can trust me to tell you the truth because I don’t have ulterior motives. I’m not forced to placate neofascism in Brexit Britain. One institution that’s diametrically opposite to Conservative ideology is the BBC. Like the NHS, it’s a national treasure. And, like the NHS, it’s taken for granted. I’m a staunch supporter and defender of both. The existential threat to BBC funding and the license fee has instilled a sense of trepidation for its very survival.
"To a common pleb like me, F1 feels very much like a sport where it’s ok to look, but it’s not ok to touch"
Since the Tories came to government in 2010, BBC funding has been slashed. But the Conservative Party want to go even further. They would love to destroy it. And not just the BBC, but the NHS too. Cowed with threats, the BBC pander to protect themselves, to conciliate the vendetta. This far-right Tory clique want to do bad things. The BBC and the NHS are in the same boat, and the Conservative Party wants to sink it. Tory scum.
When I think about Formula 1 in 2021, two expressions that relate to truth resonate in particular. You probably have heard of The Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s a fairytale about an Emperor that likes clothes. Two con artists that impersonate as weavers promise the Emperor that they will create an outfit that will be invisible to stupid people. The con artists pretend to make it, and present the illusion to the Emperor on the day of a great procession. But the Emperor can’t see the garments.
Not wanting to admit that he’s stupid, the Emperor is dressed in the fake apparel and parades in front of the public. People lining the street are perplexed by not seeing the Emperor’s special outfit. Not wanting to admit they are stupid; people sing praise for the Emperor’s exquisite clothing. Until a child bursts the bubble of delusion, shouting: "The Emperor’s wearing no clothes". The penny drops and the public pretence vanishes.
It was written by Hans Christian Andersen, in 1837. Its succinct meaning is "collective ignorance of an obvious fact, or deception, despite undeniable evidence". You have probably also heard of The Elephant in the Room. It means "a major problem or controversial issue which is obviously present but is avoided as a subject for discussion". In F1, the drivers that are selected to race for teams is an aspect of the sport that can be linked to the two expressions.
You see, to a common pleb like me, F1 feels very much like a sport where it’s ok to look, but it’s not ok to touch. I’m prevaricating around the bush. I’m referring to the privileged backgrounds of drivers, and how this aspect has become the determining factor in deciding who races for teams. The F1 commentariat don’t talk about it. Perhaps they’re scared to upset the applecart. Perhaps they’re fearful of rocking the boat. Or perhaps they are just so detached from reality, that it just doesn’t register. Immersed in the F1 bubble, they don’t care to think about it.
I don’t do slavish cheerleading. I try hard to be as objective as I can be. I know it’s unpopular and unfashionable in Brexit Britain to tell the truth, but I’m not prepared to skirt around the institutional inequality and injustice. Drivers that race for teams in F1 have talent, I’m not doubting or disputing that. But in F1, opportunity comes at a specific price, namely nepotism and cronyism. The disclosure of these drivers is not a personal vendetta attacking them. It’s a critique with facts and evidence.
In 2021, Mick Schumacher is set to make his F1 debut for the Haas team. He’s no slouch, the German won the 2020 Formula 2 Championship. For sure he’s a well liked addition to the F1 grid. But I wonder why. Any suggestion that his success or likeability has anything to do with his seven-time F1 world champion Dad Michael Schumacher is of course completely wide of the mark. It’s an absurd inference. Except of course, it isn’t. The mere fact of having Schumacher as his surname has opened doors to him that would otherwise be closed to others. Not to mention the money and contacts his Dad can provide.
Cash is king. Another driver that’s joined F1’s ranks is Lando Norris at McLaren. The British racer comes across as a cheeky sort of chap. But then most people would have a skip in their step if their Dad had a net worth of $250m. Adam Norris made his fortune as former director of Pensions Direct. That’s provided Lando Norris with the resource needed to reach F1. But he’s not too keen to discuss it. Which is partly why I’m discussing it now.
"Not everyone has the talent to be an F1 driver, but the talent to be an F1 driver can come from anywhere"
When asked about his Dads money at the French Grand Prix in 2019, he declined to talk about it, and instead deflected attention to Lance Stroll’s wealth. "I don't really like to talk about it, but compared to Lance Stroll, my father is not nearly as wealthy." He’s not wrong. But he’s kind of missing the point. He knows deep down that his privileged background is the fundamental reason why he’s an F1 driver, and that he’s nervous about how that fact is portrayed to people.
It’s been the key that’s unlocked the door for Norris. He hasn’t purchased his stripes as such, but the resources afforded to him have given him the opportunity. He has talent, he won the Formula 3 Championship in 2017. But all the merits of his success can be attributed to the wealth from his privileged background. As does his education, it’s what provided him a place at Millfield private school in Somerset. Someone’s got to spill the beans.
Cut from the same cloth is Williams driver George Russell. There’s less overt disclosure about the Brits privileged background in the public domain, but there are some pieces of the puzzle that provide clues. His Dad was part of a lucrative beans and peas business. This enabled Russell to be educated at Wisbech Grammar School. Of course, this does not detract from his talent; he won the Formula 3 and Formula 2 Championships en route to F1. But the same opulent theme is apparent. It’s the currency that’s bought Russell the opportunity.
For the record, I wish Schumacher, Norris and Russell well. But without wanting to diminish their achievements, they've been born three nil up, yet they think they’ve scored a hat-trick. They are three peas from the same prosperous pod. I don’t dislike them; they just don’t interest me so much. There’s a consistent correlation between privilege and opportunity in F1. The three drivers cited have had passages into F1 eased by affluent backgrounds. It’s become part and parcel of the driver selection process. It's all the more dispiriting to me, as the drivers are from my generation.
It’s a far cry from the humble beginnings of the greatest drivers of all time in F1. Compare and contrast much of the current crop on the grid to many of the star-studded pantheon of greats and the disparity is perturbing. The point is this: not everyone has the talent to be an F1 driver, but the talent to be an F1 driver can come from anywhere. F1 needs to establish a level playing field so driver selection is decided by talent, and not privilege. To not do so would be an oversight for F1 that undermines the sport’s credibility for equality of opportunity.
But I fear the provisions that need to be put in place will not come to pass. F1 has not exactly been forthcoming with solutions to systemic problems that exist in the sport. And the track record for addressing them is sketchy. One evidential example of this would be F1’s response to the death of George Floyd in America and the Black Lives Matter movement. The silence on the matter was deafening. Compared and contrasted with the reaction and compliance of athletes from other sports, and it was rather shocking for F1 to be mute on the subject.
We all know the person that forced F1 to act. Lewis Hamilton, for avoidance of doubt. In response, the decision was made for drivers to take the knee before races. But even that was mired in controversy. Six drivers refused to partake in the symbolic gesture. Max Verstappen, Charles Leclerc, Kimi Raikkonen, Carlos Sainz, Antonio Giovinazzi and Daniil Kvyatt, for avoidance of doubt. Each had explanations for their positions, but the rationales were unconvincing. It would suggest a lack of understanding about racism and the meaning of taking the knee. It was all rather discombobulating.
There’s a glass ceiling that inhibits equality of opportunity in F1. That reality does taint the bigger picture of the sport to some extent, and gives some credence to the notion that for people accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. For the sport to be a true reflection of talent, rules and regulations curbing fiscal expenditure have to be devised by the FIA. Otherwise, F1 will continue to block potential from prevailing, and the sport will continue to be a bastion of white privilege.
PS. From my perspective, without Lewis Hamilton (a black driver from a disadvantaged background), Formula 1 probably wouldn’t be woke. Make of that what you will.
Photos: Formula 1
Comentários