20/10/2005
FEATURE BY MIKE LAWRENCE
 |
Before long a story will probably break involving motor racing, a journalist, a newspaper and legal action. In the highly unlikely event of the journalist and newspaper winning the action, the ramifications would go far beyond motor racing. A newspaper has printed a story which suggests motor racing is being used as a cover for crime.
The journalist I'll call 'Caliban'. The reason is that that I will not give any detail which could lay a trail to the source. From me you will receive no clue as to even the country where this tosh was printed. I am working from a photostat made from an original copy of the paper, you will not find the story on the Internet. The paper has a website, but has chosen not to post this story.
Caliban has written that he likes to believe that the rumours that such and such will 'remain unfounded'. In this case the 'rumours' concern using motor racing for money laundering, and the article speaks of 'massive' sums and where that money might be going. If there was a high profile Formula Panhard team from Patagonia and an article about Formula Panhard mentioned money laundering through Patagonian banks, your focus might be pointed in a particular direction.
Imagine an article which hoped that rumours linking a government minister to a paedophile ring were unfounded. This is what Caliban has done. The minister either catches a plane to a country with no extradition treaty, or he sues. Caliban and the paper will be sued.
If Caliban or his paper had proof, they would have presented his weasel allegations as a brilliant piece of investigative journalism and published the proof. Were I in Caliban's position, and I had proof, I would hire an agent to get me world wide syndication and spots on TV chat shows. It would be my pension fund, the story is that big, but only if it could be proven.
Like every journalist, I have a stash of stories I could turn into money, but choose not to. Try this one: some years ago a friend of mine, we'll call her 'Alice', was dying of cancer and her condition was complicated by the fact that Alice had been born Henry and had undergone the Big Op. As Henry, my friend had been a promising actor at RADA he had been chosen to play Hamlet which is 'promising' writ in capital letters made of solid gold.
By a quirk of happenchance, another friend of mine played Ophelia to Henry's Hamlet and she is one of our leading classical actresses. I was once present when 'Ophelia' chatted to 'Alice' and Ophelia had no idea they had previously met, let alone spent four years together on the same course.
This is beginning to shape into a great tabloid story, especially since Henry was once married, had children, and his wife had supported him in his decision to become transsexual even though that cost him his marriage and career. As Alice he/she had gone to live with another woman, I don't know if they shared the same bed, but they shared the same roof.
Now consider this: Alice's brother in law was, and still is, an influential MP in the Conservative party which, at the time, was in government.
We have actor, sex change, possible lesbian relationship, leading actress and government minister, it was a tabloid editor's dream. There was a problem, however, which was that all of Alice's friends suffered loss of memory. There were not many in on the secret and one was on social security so could have used the money, but none of us could remember Alice.
I don't blame the editors for waving cheques, it's their job, but simply because a bribe has been offered, it doesn't mean you have to take it. It would have served no possible purpose except to titillate the sort of person who buys the gutter press. Alice's last months would have been distressing to her, and her partner. An able politician would have been dragged in simply because his sister had married an actor. The only person within Alice's circle who would know for certain who had spilled the beans would deny it, so there would be suspicion all round.
Just because you know something, it does mean that you spread it all round town. Some years later I did tell Ophelia. I appear to be telling all readers of this column though I am not because I have changed the names and omitted any reference to time or place. Unlike Caliban's allegations, however, my story is true.
In the 1950s there was a slim annual called Motor Racing Review, written by Denis Jenkinson. Without explanation the series was stopped and many years later Jenks told me why. It was once difficult to transport racing cars round Europe, you needed all sorts of paperwork. In common with some other teams, Vanwall found it easier to change the chassis plate on a car so it fitted the paperwork than to apply for new papers.
This gave Jenks a problem, he could either record which Vanwall really ran in which race, and risk getting the team into trouble, or he could record false history. Jenks chose to stop the series, so that was a nice little earner out of the window.
Motor racing is a community, like politics, the theatre, football or the music industry. In the motor racing village there is rumour and gossip, like in any village. You have agents and managers lobbying to get deals for drivers, and slagging the opposition, you have people trying to secure sponsorship, and so on. Every so often a team or company is behind in paying its bills and that is a legitimate cause for concern, it is like hearing that one of the shops in the village is closing.
Sometimes there are rumours of cheating and rumours of criminal activity. Motor racing has, indeed, been used to launder money, transporters have been used for smuggling and money from crime has been used to finance teams and drivers. One of the effects of the US48 million bond has been to keep out the chancers. All top teams employ security consultants to ensure that nobody can use their transporters for smuggling. Most teams based in Britain at any level are limited companies and therefore have to file their accounts which then are in the public domain.
Serious investigative journalism hardly ever goes on in motor racing for the simple reason that investigations need big budgets and a lot of time. It is only the wealthiest players in the mass media who can afford to send journalists underground with generous expense accounts. Most stories break because they are leaked, though some break because a journalist has been smart enough to tie together apparently disparate strands,
Everyone in the paddock admires a journalist who does that because it shows that he, or she, are thinking outside of the box, as everyone else is trying to do.
Journalists are not featured players, at best we can win the trust of people who are. When something is 'off the record', it means you cannot use it except as a starting point for independent digging. If something is 'not attributable', it means you can use the information, but not identify the source If you put a microphone in front of Ron, Flavio or Sir Frank, they can choose to speak into it or not, it is their decision. These rules apply to all forms of journalism and if you break the rules you are likely to be cut from the loop.
My understanding is that Caliban has been cut from the loop. He has FIA accreditation because he meets basic criteria, such as the circulation of the paper for whom he writes.
Rumours and stories go the rounds inside the loop, but the unwritten rule is that they never go outside. When I told Ophelia about her Hamlet, I knew it would go into the theatre loop, but would never go outside, and it never has.
Legal action against motor racing journalists had been a rare event, then came Tom Rubython. Rubython once edited Bernie's F1 magazine but, these days, he cannot obtain press accreditation because his new venture, Business F1 magazine does not meet basic criteria. In March 2003, Rubython brought an unsuccessful legal action against the FIA for not granting him accreditation.
This is your one clue about the identity of Caliban, he is not Tom Rubython. Caliban has accreditation, Rubython has not. I believe Caliban used to feed material to Rubython, but has recently been trying to distance himself, at least on the surface.
Most journalists. most of the time, try to do an honest job. Some have side interests, like PR on behalf of a driver or team and this is generally known. Martin Brundle negotiates contracts for David Coulthard and he is completely open about that, he has said so when commentating for ITV. Naturally, he does not tell us the details of the contracts, but he makes sure we know that he and DC are connected. .
Earlier this year, Business F1, published allegations claiming financial impropriety by a senior member of the FIA, who sued. The judge stopped the case at an early stage and ruled that, on his reading of the evidence, Business F1 had no means to defend itself. The judge awarded US$15,000 damages to the plaintiff and ordered Rubython to meet all the costs, thought to be about what will buy a new Bentley Continental GT plus a holiday cottage in France.
It is my understanding that there are other libel cases pending against Mr. Rubython. In fact, Rubython may yet be involved in more cases that the whole of British motor racing journalism in a hundred years. Rubython is based in Britain, but he is South African.
It is my understanding that one of the cases involves the claim that A, known in the F1 paddock, is the illegitimate son of B, also known in the F1 paddock. I cannot understand why, even if Rubython has DNA evidence, he would want to publish this because it serves no purpose. If the story is true it will cause hurt. If it is not true, it still causes hurt.
Many journalists are not happy with Tom Rubython, who is like a loose cannon. I don't know how many thousands of motoring correspondents there are in the world, I do know that every newspaper in Britain has one if only because every newspaper has a section devoted to selling new and used cars. Every motoring correspondent will know something about the sport, it's a good way to spice a supplement. The nearest we come to controversy is if the local Panhard dealer thinks we have been less then gushing about a new Panhard model. There are thousands of us who don't get sued.
We do not always get things right, but there is no malice in our mistakes. There is a world of difference between signalling a story as rumour, and presenting a rumour as fact. To be accurate, in Caliban's case it is not quite fact, it is the sincere hope that the rumours prove unfounded. Can you detect the difference?
I know someone who has been a journalist for more than forty years who feels himself devalued by the likes of Rubython and Caliban. I know how he feels because I feel the same.
To check out previous features from Mike, click here