Re: OT: Tobacco and 2001 F1 schedule

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 01:17:34 GMT, [email hidden] (Tim McArthur) wrote: >All this only hurts auto-racing as a whole. Tobacco companies sponsor >one hell of a lot of motor racing... from Winston Cup, to the Winston >Drag Racing, to F1 teams and races. If the smaller teams and tracks >dont have that income, what may happen to them? I've watched all different types of racing all of my life, and somehow I was never influenced to smoke. I hope the porn industry starts sponsoring, and instead of cigarettes ads, cars will be festooned with 2 foot peckers spuzzing on giant sized female butts. Tim

EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! I'm laughing my ass off on THAT post! Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Jenna Jameson, Jenteal, or Kobe Tai on the hood of a car. I mean, the closest litigation porn has is the monthly lawsuits against Larry Flynt, and it's not like NASCAR fans wouldn't want to see such cars. Now FORMULA ONE is a different story... Still laughing, Sundown

For those who blithely opined that the WHO's proposed worldwide ban on all tobacco advertising and sponsorship wouldn't affect motorsports, and that the WHO had no legal power to enforce such a ban on member nations, please check out the following story from today's Autosport, especially paragraph three: ------------------------------------------------- FIA takes the lead on tobacco ban 2006 tobacco cut-off pre-empts international legislation Motorsport�s governing body, the FIA, will introduce a worldwide ban on tobacco advertising from the end of the 2006 season. The move pre-empts plans by the World Health Organisation to bring in a mandatory ban on all forms of tobacco advertising and sponsorship. The FIA announced the ban at Wednesday�s meeting of its decision-making arm, the World Council, in an attempt to take the initiative in what is an increasingly complicated political arena. The WHO�s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would constitute a worldwide ban on all forms of tobacco promotion, with WHO member states legally bound to follow it. In theory, it would supersede all other voluntary or mandatory agreements already in place, but the FIA�s ban now gives all race teams and organisers a hard and fast cut-off point in which to find alternative funding. The European Union had proposed its own tobacco advertising ban, to come into force at the end of 2006, but this was ruled unlawful by the European Court of Justice yesterday. Germany and Austria had opposed the EU proposal on the grounds that it had been introduced under EU single market legislation, rather than as a health and safety issue. But the FIA�s 2006 date may still meet with complications in certain countries, including the UK. The UK has set a 2003 deadline for a tobacco advertising ban, but has given Formula 1 and snooker an extra three-year extension. However, the UK�s Labour government is coming under pressure to treat F1 like any other sport in an attempt to clear itself of the �sleaze� allegations that rumble on in the wake of F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone�s �1 million donation to the party. ------------------------------------------------- So for once the FIA is giving some advance notice of a sweeping rules change -- unless, of course, the WHO decrees an earlier date, which would legally take precedence over anything the FIA decrees. Smoke 'em if you got 'em... Also, the 2001 schedule is out, and Austria has swapped dates with Great Britain, so there should be no repeat of the ungodly shambles at Silverstone last year: March 4 AUSTRALIA (Melbourne) March 18 MALAYSIA (Sepang) April 1 BRAZIL (Interlagos) April 15 SAN MARINO (Imola) April 29 SPAIN (Barcelona) May 13 AUSTRIA (A1-Ring) May 27 MONACO (Monte Carlo) June 10 CANADA (Montreal) June 24 EUROPE (Nurburgring) July 1 FRANCE (Magny-Cours) July 15 GREAT BRITAIN (Silverstone) July 29 GERMANY (Hockenheim) August 19 HUNGARY (Budapest) September 2 BELGIUM (Spa-Francorchamps) September 16 ITALY (Monza) September 30 UNITED STATES (Indianapolis) October 14 JAPAN (Suzuka)

All this only hurts auto-racing as a whole. Tobacco companies sponsor one hell of a lot of motor racing... from Winston Cup, to the Winston Drag Racing, to F1 teams and races. If the smaller teams and tracks dont have that income, what may happen to them? Who knows, maybe we will see only 6 cars entering F1 races after 2006. Though I doubt NASCAR will feel much an effect... but Winston Cup Series sure sounds a lot better then Kraft Macarroni and Cheese Cup Series doesnt it? (But then again, Phillip Morris owns Kraft hehe) But after everything is said and done, auto-racing will continue on with only a small hic-up, Im sure. I just feel for the smaller teams and sanctioning bodies that really need the money that these companies put into the mix. What amazes me is that WHO and all the governments still allow alcohol adverts and even TV commercials (prime time and sporting events even)... and it is widely known to be a killer... even second hand (drunk drivers, etc). If I were president.... :-)

In article <39dd2628.8735275@news>, [email hidden] says... > All this only hurts auto-racing as a whole. Tobacco companies sponsor > one hell of a lot of motor racing... from Winston Cup, to the Winston > Drag Racing, to F1 teams and races. If the smaller teams and tracks > dont have that income, what may happen to them? > I admit to only watching F1 recently, so I'm not sure of other series. What I see, though, is that the big tobacco companies sponsor only the top teams (i.e.: the ones who win). The withdrawal of tobacco support thus would not affect small teams adversely, and may even allow more "tolerated" sponsors to enter the fray... -- o n e t h i r t y R

You had this to say: >>>>>I admit to only watching F1 recently, so I'm not sure of other series. What I see, though, is that the big tobacco companies sponsor only the top teams (i.e.: the ones who win). The withdrawal of tobacco support thus would not affect small teams adversely, and may even allow more "tolerated" sponsors to enter the fray... -- o n e t h i r t y R>>>>> Are you saying that British American Racing (BAR) Honda is a winning team? Because last I checked, Lucky Strike is a make of cigarettes...but how would I know? being a smoker and all.

Welcome to the real world of high-flying "policommerce"*, Tim, where one of the words missing from their lexicon is "hypocrite". * "Policommerce" = politically-infected commerce or commercially-infected politics. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Tim McArthur <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:39dd2628.8735275@news... > > > What amazes me is that WHO and all the governments > still allow alcohol adverts and even TV commercials (prime time and > sporting events even)... and it is widely known to be a killer... even > second hand (drunk drivers, etc). >

Err - Prost & Gauloises

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > I admit to only watching F1 recently, so I'm not sure of other series. > What I see, though, is that the big tobacco companies sponsor only the > top teams (i.e.: the ones who win). The withdrawal of tobacco support > thus would not affect small teams adversely, and may even allow more > "tolerated" sponsors to enter the fray... > > -- > > o n e t h i r t y R

Xolio wrote: >You had this to say: > >>>>>> >I admit to only watching F1 recently, so I'm not sure of other series. >What I see, though, is that the big tobacco companies sponsor only the >top teams (i.e.: the ones who win). Teams with fag adverts: McLaren, Ferrari, Benetton, Jordan, Prost, BAR. Teams without: Williams, Jaguar, Minardi, Arrows, Sauber. Next year Prost will be without Gauloises sponsorship, and I'd be very surprised if Renault continued with tobacco advertising when they fully take control of Benetton. It would be easier than you might think for BAR to cope without, too, as BAT own a large number of non-tobacco brands (eg Eagle Star insurance). And if one of the "big two" brought in a non-fag main sponsor, I think the whole thing would be on the way out. And a good thing too, IMO. As for the people saying "why should a legal product be singled out?" the answer is obvious - tobacco is the *only* legal product which it is *impossible* to use safely. Even one cigarette increases your chance of illness and death. So a unique law is justified. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: -5.17) The GPL Scrapyard - http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

> It would be easier than you might think for BAR to cope without, too, as > BAT own a large number of non-tobacco brands (eg Eagle Star insurance). >The question is are these truly global products, that is one of the key reasons tobacco has been involved. BAT wouldn't get involved just because they want to be in motor racing but after providing a business case for advertising particular products. The figures probably would not stack up switching to an entirely different part of the business. > And if one of the "big two" brought in a non-fag main sponsor, I think the > whole thing would be on the way out. And a good thing too, IMO. >Like the Canon Williams years in the 80s - they were definately in the big 2 > As for the people saying "why should a legal product be singled out?" the > answer is obvious - tobacco is the *only* legal product which it is > *impossible* to use safely. Even one cigarette increases your chance of > illness and death. So a unique law is justified. >Every time you start your car you emit harmful gases. Should we also ban Orange so as not to encourage mobile phone use as they emit radiation every time you put one to your ear. For some a packet of peanuts could not be used safely. It is just not that simple - that is why the lawyers rake it in...

In article <DlBD5.3351$[email hidden]>, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> It would be easier than you might think for BAR to cope without, too, as >> BAT own a large number of non-tobacco brands (eg Eagle Star insurance). >> >The question is are these truly global products, that is one of the key >reasons tobacco has been involved. BAT wouldn't get involved just because >they want to be in motor racing but after providing a business case for >advertising particular products. The figures probably would not stack up >switching to an entirely different part of the business.

I didn't know Gauloises was a cigarette company before two messages ago, but then again, I'm from the US, and I'm not a smoker...<g> Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +49.67 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

hehe....i don't think the 'very macho males' of F1 will have a problem with it!!