Although his writing can sometimes be just a little too flowery, certainly for our tastes, it is good to see the Daily Telegraph's Kevin Garside asking the question many of his colleagues within the F1 paddock appear to be avoiding.

Writing about Ari Vatanen's decision to go to the French courts, such is his concern over how the forthcoming presidential election is being managed by the FIA, Garside writes: "Under French law it is an offence for interested parties to meddle and risk prejudicing outcomes. This trifle puts Max Mosley in a tight spot given the visibility of the hand used to massage the campaign of Jean Todt and the size of the boot put into rival candidate Ari Vatanen.

"Mosley is bang to rights, of course," Garside continues. "That won't trouble him. He has a marvellous flair for bending ethical practice to his cause. Those who disagree with him invariably fail to see his logic, usually as a result of an inferior intellect.

"The question to ask is this; what is it about Todt's manifesto, managed by a senior Mosley aide seconded to the role, that so attracts Le President. Perhaps it is simply a matter of great minds thinking alike after years of close friendship forged when Todt was clearing a path for Michael Schumacher at Ferrari.

"Or maybe it has to do with Mosley maintaining a remote grip on the tiller via the aegis of Todt from his seat in the FIA Senate. Mosley insists that he is ready to step back from the organisation he has ruled for the best part of two decades. Yes, and penguins are about to march on the North Pole."

Fantastic stuff Mr Garside, let's hope some of your colleagues stop worrying about their passes and start asking the same questions… before it's too late.