The double standard tobbaco ban - why are some circuits allowed and not others?

[Yoong Montoya]

This was inspired by the thread on Spa being dropped. I do understand that there are commercial reasons involved, but why is it that the FIA can allow the French Grand Prix to run without tobacco advertising and not other circuits like the Belgian Grand Prix?

[Neil C]

It's not a DOUBLE standard, it's a separate standard for every country in which they compete. It is pure politics. If Belgium had the same influence in the FIA as France, Spa would be on the calendar.

[Sato san]

yes.....so that is a double standard in my book .....why not cancel every other non tobacco track .

[ASCII Man]

I can't help feeling a "little" frustrated...

[shiny side up!]

I believe some tracks had already banned tobacco ads when the agreement to end all adverts in 2006 was established. Belgium, after agreeing to the 2006 timeline initially, is now changing its policy... unfortunately, this ticks off teams and sponsors, and Bernie, so that is why we won't see a race at Spa next year... so sad. Theoretically, Spa could get its race back at a later date, although with all the new tracks trying to get on the calendar and the need to trim a European date or 2 off the calendar, it is fairly unlikely that will happen.

[Spudgun]

As shiny has said, I think he's hit the nail on the head there.. Will the FIA see reason? *guffaw*

But seriously, I hope they do give it in a spot for 2003. The sport is not exactly in top shape. It'll be like kicking someone when they're already on the floor.

[Armco Bender]

Hence the reason they want more races in Asia and Arab countries,no tobacco bans there,billions of smokers there too.

[ASCII Man]

Yep, screwing human rights there too...

[Sato san]

I know th e tobacco industry has put in a lot of money over the years in to F1 ....but now its sheer madness that weve got a track as good as Spa , that they are thinking about putting the race somewjhere else , just so they can advertise cigarettes !

[Total-F1]

Britain and France changed the laws to ban tobacco ads 30-odd years ago - the Belgian government are just being awkward and officious.

If the FIA moved the race back a month, the GP could go ahead. As it is, as Belgium won't budge, it's hard cheese.

[ASCII Man]

Ah well, i don't have anything more to say on this subject since it would only depress me even more...

[RT]

It would seem that Bernie and Max are in the pocket of the tobacco companies.

Apart from the public health effects of tobacco, it is fair to say that tobacco companies are not interesting in the quality of racing.

Nascar may not be the best racing or technology but it has been able to divesify the sponsorship of the series and F1 should do the same.

I mean, cars would go just as fast at Spa with a hamurger or pizza chain logo but they won't be able to provide the same excitement if they're forced to go round and round some crappy little circuit in the midle of a desert just so Bernie and Max attend to their finances.

It's time to let these two unfunny clowns go into the sunset. They're about to kill the series with their 9 points and the changes in venues. Somebody needs to realize that the value of F1 is anchored in the grand european tracks. Even for circuits in asia, it is important to maintain a connection vis a vis Monza, Spa, etc, etc. If Bernie and Max don't step out, we're going to see the european tracks disappear behind a puff of tobacco smoke.

[Jordi]

My take is "why ban tobacco ads at all?" If it tobacco's so bad it can't be announced, why don't they just outlaw tobacco?

People don't smoke because they see a logo here or there. But the biggest hypocrisy is the people who sue the tobacco companies after years and years of smoking... No one obliged them to smoke!

(sorry, it's a bit off-topic)

[RT]

Yes, you could show tobacco ads, it's not like we don't know that they're sponsoring one team or another.

My view is that if someone can't get it into their head that they're putting a potent and proven carcinogen in their lungs...well, that's their business and they should be also responsible to face the health and economic consequences to their lives and not go then and drain the resources of the health care system they live under.

However, I also agree that this is a bit off-topic. The point I was making is that there is a real stranglehold that tobacco companies have on F1 right now and that's not healthy (no pun intended) for the sport. F-1 needs to bring more sponsorship from other sources, from sources that won't dictate which tracks are "fiancially viable" to their own own interests.

It's more a question of de facto monopoly on the F1 series. It needs to be curtailed or we're all going to be watching mickey mouse tracks for the whole schedule. We should borrow that diversification page from the NASCAR or CART notebooks.

Cheers,

RT

[ASCII Man]

You're right there, Jordi..
That old woman claiming that the tobaccocompanies lied to her about the healthrisks of smoking is a pure whatever-english-word-describes-such-a-person...
"My client is not doing it for the money!" ... Yeah right!

[CleanTone]

If you are chinese or bahrainian(or whatever is correct) this might be the only time you get worried for a european's health. This is the best opportunity for emerging motorsport nations. I know it's off forum what I'm about to say but a tobacco friendly country can bring a CART race with very low costs. But I have noone to talk to.

[RT]

I would not call Bahrain or China emerging motorsport powers. I do see the benefits of bringing F1 to a diversity of countries but not at the expense of the great tracks and for reasons unrelated to racing. It doesn't sound like the chinese are a growth market...not just yet (to be politically correct) for BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes and Ferrari but they sure seem to be a huge market for the tobacco companies.

My guess is that there are slots for something like 20 GP and there should be a selection based on tradition, racing interest, potential for growth in the motorsport area....in one word, for the future strength of Formula 1 and not with the only consideration of how many third world people will buy the cigarretes and load up their lungs with nicotine (addictive as heck) and carcinogens.

Although we more or less agree that it's an individual's choice whether or not to smoke. I doubt that the people in those areas (who would be identifying the smoking habit with the fancy image of F1) have anywhere the level of education in health or science to know what are the long-term effects of smoking.

Of course I don't see Bernie and Mak pushing for education programs on these health issues when they bring F1 to a low income country. Sadly it's not acout racin they care in making these decisions. It's only about the tobacco money, isn't it?

[Total-F1]

Funny how people forget what Bernie and Max have done for F1 when they disagree with something.

What they're trying to do in breaking the extremely lucrative Chinese market is bring in new sponsors to F1 in time for the '07 ban.

Sponsors will be falling over themselves to advertise to the Chinese - I think the Asian market is more important to F1 than America is as far as money goes.

[Jordi]

Searching new sponsors doesn't pay for having Spa off the calendar.

[paul-collins]

Originally posted by RT
...and they should be also responsible to face the health and economic consequences to their lives and not go then and drain the resources of the health care system they live under.

Easily said. Not easily done. How do you determine whether a particular illness is caused by smoking? How do you determine a particular illness is not?

[RT]

Smokers usually have a long history of lung problems before they hit the big two (Emphysema or Lung cancer) and it is then that they should make a choice (for instance a 700% premium on Health insurance for the following ten years or be made to pay for it in countries where health care is "free" (somebody actually pays for it always). I bet a good hit in the pocketbook at an early stage would help prevent a slowly choking death..and save the systems some cash for other non-behavioral illnesses.

There are ways to discourage smoking illnesses effectively but there are also ways to promote them effectively...Just ask Bernie...

[Total-F1]

Maybe smokers should pay more taxes to cover NHS costs...wait a minute, they do...fiver a packet...

[Armco Bender]

Germany was the first country to ban the fag ads on the cars in the mid '70s but now the cars there run with ads again.How come,what has slipped past me?

[Rob29]

Germany had a volontary agreement,like UK,not to have tobacco ad on the cars when race is televised. For some reason it has lapsed.
In Italy,the ads are allowed on the cars,but not around the circuit.
In France all tobacco and alchohol ads are banned.
In USA each company is apparently only allowed to sponsor one team in all sport.

[Piglet]

If advertising tobacco doesn't work, why do the tobacco companies spend so much money doing it?