Canadian Grand Prix Dumped (merged)?

[Cynic]

So the million dollar non-tobacco sponsored question is has Canada gone or hasn't it?
Of course what this is really about is Bernie's quest to earn yet more millions by taking F1 into the Far East. He needs to reduce the number of races currently on the calendar to make room, so he needs a big-name scalp to use as a precedent. The British GP is still there depite his best efforts, so he's had to turn his attention elsewhere.
The daft thing is that if you ask the teams what races they want to lose, no one would say Canada. I can virtually gaurantee the top three would be Monaco, Hungary and Brazil, although not necessarily in that order.

[sss]

looks like a bit of a threat that if the canadians dont change there advertising rules then they may lose it, i reckon this was a 'press leak' to give them a heads up to sort it out.

[Liz]

This gentleman is the chief Nanny and has been at the forefront of saving you from yourself from the beginning. This quotation is from the November 28, 1977 issue of Maclean's Magazine, a prominent Canadian news magazine. Notice that he equates smoking cigarettes with drunken driving (one of them a legal practice, one of them not) and claims the same moral grounds allow him to punish you for either one -- because you stupidly refuse to do what he thinks is best:

Garfield Mahood says people must be forced by law to protect themselves for their own good. "You can educate people from here to doomsday that they shouldn't drink and drive, and they'll still do it," he says. "You have to combine the education with something else -- legislation and peer group pressure."

If you think you can reason with these people, you are dreaming.

P.S. Saying "they will just have to adjust" is naive. The world is by and large not ruled by the Nicotine Taliban. All "they" have to do is move to a place that has not yet been overrun.

[mark ch]

F1 was almost exciting for a moment. How about a drivers strike just to really make things fruity blaming a shortage of interesting circuits (with loss of Spa and Canada) or having races red flagged because the circuits they are allowed to use are too smokey.

Did someone say F1 was predictable... the gossip doesn't seem it today

[TeddyG]

[429CJ]

Now is good time to quit smoking. Let's bring the tobacco companies down, let's get their living so difficult as possible.

[Inigo Montoya]

While we're at it, lets ban alcohol - its also bad for you. And heck, lets ban automobiles - all those dangerous car crashes, not to mention the emissions...

Ok, enough off topic talk, or the moderators will slap me around...

[Mr V]

For all the anti-smokers out there, fair enough, i respect your decision, but the fact that your are still anti-smokers just goes to prove that the tobacco advertising doesn't work and banning it seems pretty pointless. If these companies want to plow millions into the buisness then why not?

[Inigo Montoya]

http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/news_story.asp?id=49889

Tsn claims that this might be more about financing than about tobacco. It might be a ploy by the organizers to get the gov't to toss in more money next year, seeing as Air Canada has declined to sponsor the race anymore...

[Jay]

To be honest, whether tobacco advertising is good or bad...or just not bad... I could care less.. and I think the FIA and F1 could care less...

the issue is that, like it or not, tobacco advertising will soon be a thing of the past in North American and Europe.

There are two things we can do -

a) Stop big-time racing in North America and Europe

b) Get on with it, and find other revenue streams to replace tobacco. I realise that there is very little to replace all tobacco advertising, so costs MUST come down...possibly quite significantly.

[Bononi]

Well, it doesn't seems to be that way...

http://www.planet-f1.com/Home/story_12628.shtml

Ecclestone's denial comes in the wake of Canadian race promoter Nomand Legault announcing that thet Montreal race had been axed. Legault called a press conference on Thursday to reveal that the race would no longer be taking place after he received a letter from Ecclestone's management company informing him of the Brit's decision.

However, Ecclestone has now said that is not the case. In fact, the F1 supremo claims he has not even begun to think about which races will take place next season, and which one will be dropped to make way for China and Bahrain.

"I've no idea where this story came from - the calendar for 2004 has not been put out yet or even considered," Ecclestone told the PA news agency.

"I don't know what's in my head at the moment I'm so busy, but the calendar for 2004 is not out yet

[429CJ]

Sponsoring is not good, when it dictates, where to race, for f***'s sake.

[avsfan733]

Originally posted by Liz
When the marching mommies and daddies realise that the $100 million hit Montreal will take (by this morning's early estimates) next year means they will have to pay for their babies' own daycare, summery camp, education and medical care without any help from The Government, because money doesn't fall from the angels in heaven, and because every other business in Canada is either owned by foreigners or bankrupt, we will hear less from the "We had to destroy you to save you" crowd and more from the people who realise it's not all an abstract exercise being played out far away.

I predict that they will do absolutely nothing for the next eight months or so, steadfastly pretending that somehow this will all magically disappear, "blow over", or be rescued by persons unknown, and after the weekend passes and the money goes to Spa and not to Montreal, then the backlash will begin.

JohnSS, I merely repeat the time honoured phrase "Actions have Consequences" and if you choose to smoke, in the face of overwhelming evidence that your action will have dire consequences, it is not the fault of others.

Incidentally, there are high schools in Canada where not only are kids suspended for smoking, but they must attend forced re-education camps before being allowed back into schools; and the police of Alberta are now authorized to confiscate cigarettes (a legal product legally obtained) at will.

Perhaps this is the world you want to live in. Personally I find it alarming. I'm hiding my candy bars, coffee, beer, and ice cream before the next wave of Nannies is unleashed.

liz I couldn't agree more! We have to put up with this nonsense...day in and day out and now it is directly affecting a serious chunk of a cities economy. No one wants to ban comdom adds or beer adds or car adds because they make people have sex/drink/drive, its ludicrous. And your statement about "Actions having consequences" illustrates more than just smoking. When it comes race weekend and every hotel in Montreal is empty and every hotel in Spa booked, then their actions will have serious consequences.

The worst part of all is that all of this is based on a single survey done i the US many years ago which was manipulated by different agencies to make it appear that second hand smoke is an actual hazard, the report said it wasn't.

[TedN]

Originally posted by Bononi
Well, it doesn't seems to be that way...

http://www.planet-f1.com/Home/story_12628.shtml

I wouldn't exactly call that a denial. Bernie is vague in what he says. He did not specifically say the GP was either on or off .

Ted

[JohnSSC]

kdr, Climb and Testure, thanks for the support. I beg the indulgence of the mods here as $$ are the lifeblood of F1, and where those $$ come from is(I hope) on topic.

To Liz, Inigo Montoya & Avsfan, absolutely I agree that actions DO have consquences. There is a difference here. I can choose to eat a hamburger or eat fries - or not. I can choose to be a forum member - or not. I can choose or choose not to do many things. My point with tobacco is that the product is made to addict you. Addiction is not a choice. In this case it is chemical seduction - a creation of an artificial desire to want something.

How confusing it must be for some to see glamorous exciting adverts showing people smoking with no consequences when contrasted to the harsh medical realities. And I guarantee you, if those adverts did not work, they wouldn't spend the money on them. Inigo, your reference to early death saving money was, I hope, tongue-in-cheek. Smoking exacerbates many problems. Strokes that may have been survivable are either debilitating or fatal as a result of reduced cardiovascular sufficiency. Likewise, various arrythmias (fluctuations in heart pacing) are worsened because of reduced cardiovascular efficiency resulting from smoking. The costs are enormous and it is a specious (and needlessly cruel) arguement to say: "Well it is a societal good if they die younger." The cost in health terms to the smoker, not counting secondary smoke (a good point made earlier) is still far in excess of any residual value F1 or all of racing combined perform for any economy. It is very simple, the side effects from smoking worsen (and therefore make more expensive) the treatment of many diseases.

The desire for said cigarette is not 100% someone's choice - it is an addiction that has been cultivated. If quitting smoking were so easy, why all the remedies, products and programs to quit? Why aren't the success rates for quitting better? You can go on all you want about "nannies" as a way of arguing this from an emotional rather than rational viewpoint. The facts are very simple. Cigarettes are a health risk, your chances of becomiong addicted are part of the marketing equation, and I take my hat off to any team who does without tobacco $$.

I am sorry that Canada's F1 race is getting jerked around because of this, but sports in general have taken the easy way out for too long by courting this particular "revenue stream."

Mods and members, I apologize if this is seen as of topic, but I truly believe that it is very on-topic. Someone is going to have to wake up to and deal with the fact that big tobacco will not be writing large checks for much longer. If that means racing diminishes and some kid does not go the "glamour route" by smoking, then that is a good thing.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
In this case it is chemical seduction - a creation of an artificial desire to want something. ... You can go on all you want about "nannies" as a way of arguing this from an emotional rather than rational viewpoint.

I'll mark my "historic" 1000th post by, typically, being blunt: JohnSSC, I'm sorry you didn't read the insightful, well-informed, logical, rational, unemotional article by Jacob Sullum that I linked. It falsifies every point you make.

Don't take offense; I've been through this debate before with everyone from strangers on the Internet to my dearest friends, and I know that we'll never change each other's opinion on this. We agree that tobacco is bad, but I'm willing to leave it to smokers themselves to decide whether several decades of smoking pleasure is worth the expense along the way, the shortened life expectancy and the suffering at the end. (Not worth it to me.) For now, it's a legal product, so if governments can profit from cigarettes, I don't see why race teams can't also.

The Montreal Chamber of Commerce has vowed to fight this, while Bernie claims to be confused and undecided, so my suspicion is that Montreal will keep the race. But here's the crux: Banning tobacco logos at the track will not save lives, nor will it will not save Canada any healthcare expenses. It will cost the people of Montreal upwards of 38 million dollars, will give politicians something to crow about, and will make do-gooders feel good. Canada would be wise to work out an exception to the ban. At the other end of the devil's bargain, Bernie is using the tobacco ban as a bargaining chip (as Cynic and others mentioned) in his long-term, short-sighted plan to maximize his insanely large bank account. There are no good guys here.

[JohnSSC]

eatapc: congrats on the 1,000th post. How do you know I did not read the article? The fact that my opinion runs counter to it does not indicate that I did not (I did). The article is as chock-full of unsubstantiated anti-nannyism as any I have read! I would have had it handed back to me by my journalism prof had I written it and dared to turn it in. She was funny about attribution of quotes, arranging facts in a logical and sequential manner with appropriate documentation that supports the supposition. No, I didn't exactly do that here, but I didn't sell my article to an online magazine.

Sullum proves my point actually in that he argues from an emotional standpoint: "darn government making us do stuff" which strikes a chord in many, myself included. Chat with a cardiologist, an oncologist or an epidemiologist sometime. These folks would be happy to provide you with the empirical data so missing from both Sullum's opinion piece and my own.

Will banning adverts at one race save lives? In a direct sense, maybe not. But autoracing very much carries the banner for tobacco. And again I emphasize that if the advertising did not work (that is, elicit a favorable impression of the product and encourage use of the particular brand) they simply wouldn't bother. That is the point that is missed - they wouldn't waste the cash if it was not cost effective.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by JohnSSC
How do you know I did not read the article? The fact that my opinion runs counter to it does not indicate that I did not (I did). ... I would have had it handed back to me by my journalism prof had I written it and dared to turn it in. She was funny about attribution of quotes ....

Maybe you should read it again. Acting superior to a respected expert like Sullum doesn't help your case. If you want the attributions and footnotes, read his book, which Amazon will be happy to sell you: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...06848273606505

From a review of Sullum's book in The New England Journal of Medicine: "A curious and challenging mixture of fact and philosophy is what makes this book so intriguing and worthwhile. Sullum marshals an impressive array of facts and arguments in tackling such fundamental issues as addiction, the risks of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, the legitimacy of taxing cigarettes, and the effects of advertising. He has undertaken a truly prodigious amount of research and frequently (but decidedly not always) demonstrates a striking sophistication in discussing technical issues."

[JohnSSC]

eatapc, I surrender to your relentless logic! Of course, Sullum's reasoning is flawless, how dare I challenge it as I am but one of the Great Unwashed. Having an expectation that the arguement he makes be properly supported is not "acting superior" imho, it is something you learn in journalism 101.

Get a grip here. Visit an oncology clinic sometime and check out the folks who used snuff or chewed and are missing items like their tongues.

We can save the tax discussion for later, but please point me to the empirical data that demonstrates cigarette smoking has even a neutral effect on one's health.

I am thinking it is Parc Ferme for this one.

[Testure]

The issue here isn't whether smoking is bad for you, whether it should be legal, taxed, or anything else. As far as I'm concerned, an adult shold be free to buy anything from tobacco to speed in their local supermarket. The issue is whether tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise at and sponsor sporting events. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't. It's abhorrent to me to see a sporting event associated with such a product.

The FIA are in a difficult position because half the grid is sponsored by tobacco companies. Such advertising is being banned across the western world. Now, at the same time, we have lots of new venues being constructed in countries which apparently don't have these advertising issues. The car manufacturers are also interested in these markets. The FIA can do a few things:

1. Stick with the schedule roughly as it is now. The teams will be forced to find non-tobacco sponsorship. Budgets will be forced to drop. It'll be painful in the short-term, but beneficial in the medium to long-term.

2. Drop some existing races and move more of the schedule to places where teams can continue their tobacco sponsorship. The FIA thus guarantees a few more years of this sponsorship, but it will go away eventually. Short-term gain at the expense of medium to long-term pain.

It looks like they're choosing number 2 there. Remember that removing the tobacco sponsorship is now an FIA "recommendation" rather than a ban. They're just delaying the inevitable, though. Do they also risk alienating the existing fan-base?

Originally posted by eatapc
Maybe you should read it again. Acting superior to a respected expert like Sullum doesn't help your case. If you want the attributions and footnotes, read his book, which Amazon will be happy to sell you: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...06848273606505

From a review of Sullum's book in The New England Journal of Medicine: "A curious and challenging mixture of fact and philosophy is what makes this book so intriguing and worthwhile. Sullum marshals an impressive array of facts and arguments in tackling such fundamental issues as addiction, the risks of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, the legitimacy of taxing cigarettes, and the effects of advertising. He has undertaken a truly prodigious amount of research and frequently (but decidedly not always) demonstrates a striking sophistication in discussing technical issues."

"respected expert"? OK, let's take a closer look at that review shall we?

"Sullum's take on any number of issues is ... colored to a deep hue by the driving force of his philosophical concerns."

Translation - the "factual predicate" is less important to this author than the "philosophical proposition". Right. Me? I'll stick with the facts, thanks.

"He exhibits little appreciation of addiction, dismissing it by resorting to such bromides as the fact that a large proportion of smokers has successfully quit without formal assistance"

He's can't be serious about this can he?

"Sullum is not concerned by the youthful initiation of smoking, in large part because he does not accept that smoking is truly (and importantly) addictive."

Good. Grief.

"Sullum's interpretation of the crucially important evidence with respect to the health implications of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is similarly one-sided, revealing a limited appreciation of the science and drawing on the opinion of economists at the Congressional Research Service"

Hey, maybe my granddad should have visited his bank manager rather than a doctor when he was coughing up his cancerous, diseased lungs!

The review says that that book is relatively well written, is a fascinating read, even makes some good points about advertising, but contains a great deal of scientifically inaccurate drivel and substitutes known fact for philosophical reasoning.

[JohnSSC]

Bless you, Testure! Saved me a trip to Google!

Your last para sums things up nicely.

[eatapc]

Good post, Testure. Thanks for: 1) sticking to the Montreal topic; and 2) taking the trouble to go to my link, read the review, and think seriously about it.

I disagree with your interpretation of the review, but that's what makes horse (and car) races. As I said earlier, I know I'm not going to change minds here; the most I can hope for is to plant a small seed. I think that if you were to read Sullum's book you'd see that his analysis is more nuanced and balanced than you'd think. It's hard to sum up whole chapters in a sentence or two. I urge anyone interested to go to the Amazon link I provided above and read all the reviews.

In any case, the emotionally-charged tobacco debate is one for Parc Ferme, while a discussion of the Montreal situation properly belongs here. Unfortunately, they are inextricably bound together. Let's all keep it civil so the admins don't have to waste time breaking up fights.

[Carla O]

Should I be a hardened smoker? I started watching the evil formula 1 when i was 9... I never smoked in my life and I don't want to, but i don't want to see tobacco advertising banned, as some people have mentioned there is no proof that banning the ads will make people smoke less.

should old films be banned as well, most of the old time heroes smoke... and why not bann alcohol ads? alcohol in cars? my goodness...

people should have free choice. i choose not to smoke not to go to fast food restaurants and i choose to drink once i a while. but i don't want some government or oher telling me what i should watch, or do.

bring back CAnada and tobacco sponsorship, the JPS Lotus was one of the better looking cars in F1

[kdr]

i choose not to smoke, or have my clothes smell. but other people who smoke force that upon me. thanks...enjoy your free choice.

i believe tobacco sponsorship on f1 cars is finished. get over it folks and move on.

i believe and hope the canadian gp should(and probably will)stay in montreal. i very much doubt that the city is going to go bankrupt because the gp doesn't turn up. if it does i'd suggest they sack their accountants.

i believe the jps lotus was good looking because it was painted in black and gold, not because it was sponsored by tobacco.

i believe there are many clever people in f1...and right now if they have any sense whatsoever they're courting microsoft, dell, coca-cola, etc etc etc.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by kdr
i believe there are many clever people in f1...and right now if they have any sense whatsoever they're courting microsoft, dell, coca-cola, etc etc etc.

There are many international companies who could use F1 sponsorship to shine up their somewhat controversial images. Starbucks comes to mind. Here's another.