Reply With QuoteEven though I haven't been at the race in a few years...that sucks!
Sorry to cross post, but this needs to come to the attention of the general Vortex public.First let me say this:
Bernie Ecclestone is a complete moron (along with others).The article:
Quote » Montreal's Canadian Grand Prix has been dropped from the 2004 Formula One schedule due to an impending federal ban on tobacco advertising. Race organizer Normand Legault said he received the news in a Thursday letter from Formula One officials.
Legault said the race was removed from the circuit due to the impact of Canadian anti-tobacco legislation.
The legislation, announced in 1997, forbids tobacco advertising on cars. The Montreal race had a seven-year grace period before tobacco sponsors had to be dropped.
Weird. We also have a ban against tobacco advertising in the UK, to the best of my knowledge, yet there is still a GB F1 event. What's up with that?EDIT: Ah, all cleard up. A swift google search reveals we Brits got round it in time-honoured tradition of some good ol' fashioned political corruption:
Quote » The issue is an embarrassing one for Blair [Prime Minister of the UK]. Early in his tenure Formula One motor racing was exempted from a ban on tobacco advertising after the sport's billionaire boss Bernie Ecclestone gave Labor [his political party] a million pounds. The party was forced to give it back but the mud stuck. Canadians, get with the program. Political corruption, it works for the US, it works for the uK, it could work for you too. Tightasses.
Dan
Modified by DanielAdams at 10:35 PM 8-7-2003
That stinks like monkey poop!
I agree Bernie can be a moron sometimeshe even been threatening the British grand prix and the guy is British!
Looks like the money is now in Asia and the far east...Nearly forgot they are BIG buyers of cigarettes too
Quote, originally posted by gtivr4 »
The legislation, announced in 1997, forbids tobacco advertising on cars. The Montreal race had a seven-year grace period before tobacco sponsors had to be dropped.Apparently, FIA themselves proposed an F1 tobacco ad ban in October 2000 (for implementation in 2006) but wimped out and reneged on the proposal a year later. Now there is a non-binding "recommendation".
What happened is that the Belgian Grand Prix was put back on the schedule because the Belgian gov't accepted to postpone the implementation of their anti-tobacco laws to 2006, if I'm not mistaken.
Quote, originally posted by scottuk » I agree Bernie can be a moron sometimes Looks like the money is now in Asia and the far east...Nearly forgot they are BIG buyers of cigarettes too
Why is everyone siding with the tobacco companies on this one? I'm as cynical as the best of 'em, but lets face it, tobacco companies aren't angels - they sell an addictive product that kills you, all the F1 teams have to do is find non-tobacco sponsors (is that really so hard) and the British ban on tobacco advertising (which F1 is, dirtily, exempt from) is reckoned to be on track for saving 3,000 lives a year (presumably from early smoking-related deaths).
I say yay Canada, and down with Backhander Blair and the Filthy Tobacco Companies.
Quote, originally posted by DanielAdams » Why is everyone siding with the tobacco companies on this one? I'm as cynical as the best of 'em, but lets face it, tobacco companies aren't angels - they sell an addictive product that kills you, all the F1 teams have to do is find non-tobacco sponsors (is that really so hard) and the British ban on tobacco advertising (which F1 is, dirtily, exempt from) is reckoned to be on track for saving 3,000 lives a year (presumably from early smoking-related deaths).
I say yay Canada, and down with Backhander Blair and the Filthy Tobacco Companies.
Thanks, you just said everything I was going to.
At least I got to drive on the F1 track in MOntreal last month! But that sucks, I hope Bernie's birds nest hairdo catches fire
That's BS...I really dislike Bernie and what he has done with F1...what are they adding in place of it? I think for once I'm on Canada's side
Mike
Quote, originally posted by DanielAdams » Why is everyone siding with the tobacco companies on this one? I'm as cynical as the best of 'em, but lets face it, tobacco companies aren't angels - they sell an addictive product that kills you, all the F1 teams have to do is find non-tobacco sponsors (is that really so hard) and the British ban on tobacco advertising (which F1 is, dirtily, exempt from) is reckoned to be on track for saving 3,000 lives a year (presumably from early smoking-related deaths).
I say yay Canada, and down with Backhander Blair and the Filthy Tobacco Companies.
You are completely missing the crux of the argument - tobacco is a legal product. If it is going to be sold as a legal product, then they should be allowed to advertise. If the government is so opposed to tobacco as a health risk, then they should ban the product outright. While tobacco is still legal, this is bull****.
On a related note, if they are going to ban cigs advertising, then they should feel even more compelled to ban alcohol sponsorship. That is mixing drinking with driving, is it not? But the government can't find much of an angle in that, I guess.
Originally Posted by 20aeman
The impact of the tobacco advertising ban goes far beyond F1 here in Canada. Cultural events have been hit very hard for the last couple of years by the double-whammy of tobacco sponsorship ban and the stock market crash. And with the exception of the Quebec government, the provincial governments did absolutely nothing to make up for the lost funding.As for the Montreal F1 race being dropped from the calendar, it is just business as usual in the silly world known as Formula One. Quite frankly if F1 disappear from the face of the planet tomorrow, hardly anybody would even notice. On the plus side we will all get an extra hour of sleep every other sunday morning.
It would have been sad to see Montreal being taken off the calendar if us mere mortals were allowed to walk around the F1 paddock and meet the drivers. But since the F1 management doesn't think much of the fans, why should we care at all? F1 as a sporting organization is just way too snooty and insufferable. Other than Paul Stoddart, the whole place is infested with sh-t talkers.
Screw the Tobacco Companies!!!Listen there are plenty of other huge riche corporations.
Banks, Oil Companies, Insurance Companies....
We can't bow to big tobacco, but another corporate sponsor needs to come along.
A lot of places (Silverstone) don't allow tobacco advertising. Why pick on Canada?
Quote, originally posted by Double-V » You are completely missing the crux of the argument - tobacco is a legal product. If it is going to be sold as a legal product, then they should be allowed to advertise. If the government is so opposed to tobacco as a health risk, then they should ban the product outright. While tobacco is still legal, this is bull****.
On a related note, if they are going to ban cigs advertising, then they should feel even more compelled to ban alcohol sponsorship. That is mixing drinking with driving, is it not? But the government can't find much of an angle in that, I guess.
That made far too much sense. I think my head will now expload...
screw tobacco.
who cares.theres too much sponsorship from them anyway.
legalize marijuana... Ill root for the company that sponsors the Weed F1 carnote: I do not smoke or promote the use of Marijuana... I just was trying to be funny...
Addendum to note: I failed
Modified by Chapel at 6:15 PM 8/7/2003
Quote, originally posted by Double-V »
You are completely missing the crux of the argument - tobacco is a legal product. If it is going to be sold as a legal product, then they should be allowed to advertise. If the government is so opposed to tobacco as a health risk, then they should ban the product outright. While tobacco is still legal, this is bull****..Tobacco is a legal product in the UK now, yes. Will it be in 20 years? WHo knows. I know the following though:
1) A ban on advertising should not have exceptions in return for campaign donations
2) A ban on tobacco advertising could be a handy first step in the path to banning tobacco completely
3) Even a ban on advertising alone looks like saving 3000 people a year from lung cancer etc.
4) Tobacco sales (at least in the UK) bring in a lot of revenue. Its not the kind of thing you can ban overnight without severely damaging the economy and public finances
5) A ban on tobacco now (without a buildup of other measures such as a ban on its avertisement) would be impractical, and be rejected by the public a la Poll Tax in the 1980s.
6) Whatever the revenue benfits from tobacco, the associated health care bills in a country such as the UK with a public health services must be just as great, if not greater. Although a ban on tobacco sales would create a budget deficit NOW, the public finances would probably *improve* once the burden of smoking-related treatment was removed from the public treasury.
7) The US (particularly California) is actually just as strict if not more strict in introducing anti-smoking measures (whatever the claimed reason) - for example, public smoking laws.
Quote, originally posted by Double-V » On a related note, if they are going to ban cigs advertising, then they should feel even more compelled to ban alcohol sponsorship. That is mixing drinking with driving, is it not? But the government can't find much of an angle in that, I guess. What a ridiculous angle. Alcohol adverts on cars are no more adverts for drink driving than adverts for cigarettes on TV are adverts for smoking whilst sitting on your TV.
Dan
Wait, you guys are blaming Bernie for this? He can be
blamed for many things, but not this.
Canada puts a ban on tobacco and some big sponsors
for F1 are tobacco companys. I guess he should not
allow any tobacco money to come into the F1 teams.
Actually this is Canadas fault, why would F1 want to
race in a country that won't allow many of their teams
to carry their sponsorship?
Quote, originally posted by Double-V »
You are completely missing the crux of the argument - tobacco is a legal product. If it is going to be sold as a legal product, then they should be allowed to advertise. If the government is so opposed to tobacco as a health risk, then they should ban the product outright. While tobacco is still legal, this is bull****.agreed. while i can see some justification for a smoking ban in enclosed areas,
this seems to be hounding one particular group for an unhealthy, but not illegal
activity.while we're here, how about (as you suggest) banning alcohol advertising. hey,
fast food is bad for you! how about a 'fat tax' on McDs, Burger King and KFC?
(or PFK if you're in montreal). why stop there? watching TV is unhealthy (and
FOX doubly so, apart from the simpsons!) - lets tax that too!sometimes i wish dennis leary was in charge.
montrealers must be pissed off at this - was this law a federal idea?
i can't see the chain smoking, poutine eating natives of PQ suddenly going
all politically correct (thats ottawa's job
Why are all of you blaming Bernie for a law that CANADA passed? CANADA is the one that banned F1 from being run in Canada. Bernie chose to run there as long as he possibly could, but F1 was kicked out of the country because Canada decided not to permit racing events where there are stickers on the cars sponsored by Cigarette companies.
They are Blaming Bernie for not complying or dealing with the law, like he had in UK I think...Screw the law though. I don't like smoking, I have no interest in smoking, etc.. I'm pretty much anti-smoking, and I love the laws here in Cali where smoking is prohibited in most confined public places.
All my preferences towards smoking aside:
1. I can't imagine auto racing without the tobacco companies
2. Alchohol abuse is deadlier than cigarettes.
3. If it's a LEGAL product, then they should be given every right to promote via F1, NASCAR, etc..What kind of a world doesn't want their kids to smoke, and bans tobacco from auto racing, only to replace the adverts with SEX, DRUGS, and ALCHOHOL advertising? VIAGRA? ON a RACE CAR??
HYPOCRITES! Can't see the forest for the freakin splinter up your ass.. or something like that
This makes no sense at all in light of this announcement a few days ago.....F-1 moves 2004 USGP race at Speedway to June
From the Indianapolis Star....
Quote »
The Indianapolis Motor Speedway will hold its 2004 Formula One race on June 20, track president Tony George confirmed Thursday.George received the news from F-1 boss Bernie Ecclestone in a telephone call Wednesday. George said it was Ecclestone's decision to move the U.S. Grand Prix from its usual late-September weekend.
This year's fourth annual USGP is Sept. 28. Next year's event will be three weeks after the Indy 500, which is set for May 30.
Ecclestone, who could not be reached for comment Thursday, will pair F-1's two North American races together. The Canadian Grand Prix, held in Montreal, is expected to be June 6. F-1 typically places a week between its events to allow teams to test.
"I'm happy with that," George said of the new F-1 date.
(Either that or Bernie anticipated dropping the Canadian GP all along.....
)
Damnit. I finally have a job in my field (culinary) that would have allowed me to go to this event. Even though it is always on Father's Day. I was going to take dad along. Can't beat the father and son bonding of a nice trip to the gentlemen's clubs of St Catherine Street.
... well... the F1 just lost one of the best Grand Prix in the season
Quote » Even if the Canadian Formula One race has always been a favourite amongst teams, drivers and race fans and a classic event that dates back to 1967, the decision taken by the FOM is based on commercial interests of the teams sponsored by tobacco companies, namely Ferrari (Marlboro), McLaren (West), BAR (Lucky Strike), Renault (Mild Seven) and Jordan (Benson & Edges). I think we should boycott F1
Quote, originally posted by Beleidigungmaschine » ... well... the F1 just lost one of the best Grand Prix in the season
and Montreal just lost one of the best party weeks of the year...
Quote » Even if the Canadian Formula One race has always been a favourite amongst teams, drivers and race fans and a classic event that dates back to 1967, the decision taken by the FOM is based on commercial interests of the teams sponsored by tobacco companies, namely Ferrari (Marlboro), McLaren (West), BAR (Lucky Strike), Renault (Mild Seven) and Jordan (Benson & Edges). why are most of the sponsors tobacco companies anyway? How come large companies such as Microsoft or Intel or other large companies being sponsors? I'm pretty sure they have bigger paychecks. How come oil companies and tire companies don't sponsor them heavily (as in big signs on the car).
Quote, originally posted by climacus » Quite frankly if F1 disappear from the face of the planet tomorrow, hardly anybody would even notice. .
A few people would.
Damn, I missed the last 2 Montreal GPs and was finally putting a plan together to hit it large next year.
If you smoke because you saw a car painted like a pack of Marlboros you are a moron, I have no sympathy. You don't see any F1 drivers smoking and they ride in the damn things! People need to stop trying to save other people from themselves and get on minding their own business. Can't people see where this all going? The biggest killer of all is heart disease, so let's ban ads for fattening food and save the world.
Quote, originally posted by beerman2000122 » The biggest killer of all is heart disease, so let's ban ads for fattening food and save the world. That's coming next.
Quote, originally posted by AZGolf » Why are all of you blaming Bernie for a law that CANADA passed? CANADA is the one that banned F1 from being run in Canada. Bernie chose to run there as long as he possibly could, but F1 was kicked out of the country because Canada decided not to permit racing events where there are stickers on the cars sponsored by Cigarette companies.
Blame Canada! Blame Canada!
This could be the worst time to be a Canadian Formula One fan...First there's the uncirtanty of JV's future,
Then this...
My condolences...
Who cares about the future? The simple fact is that if they race in Canada now, the teams loose money. Directly because of Canadian law. And since no one here likes to loose money, it would be dumb to expect anyone else to like it.BTW, I don't even want to start talking about how dumb this law is.
Quote, originally posted by bluespace01 » This could be the worst time to be a Canadian Formula One fan... First there's the uncirtanty of JV's future...
The uncertainty about JV's future? JV has SUCKED for six years now. 1997 was a long, long time ago. I have long since forgotten about that overpaid hack.
Montoya, Kimmi, Alonso, that's the future.
Big shame about Montreal though.
Posting Permissions
