Formula One is like marmite –you either love it or hate it.

One the one hand, you have an international tournament that provides glamour, drama and excitement like no other sport.

On the other, you have the argument that it is all about the machine, not the driver. Ferrari’s failure to continue winning every season following Michael Schumacher’s retirement may raise questions about that but Lewis Hamilton, so dominant over the last couple of seasons, has faltered alarmingly despite his obvious talent.

His team, McLaren, have had their problems, of course. They were found guilty of viewing documents from rivals Ferrari and fined heavily and then again admitted to lying at the start of this season when Hamilton finished on the podium.

This week, Renault Formula One team has released team bosses Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds over a deliberate crash by Nelson Piquet Junior, who had left the team in August.

Piquet admitted that he had crashed to help senior driver Fernando Alonso last season in Singapore, prompting legal proceedings against the Brazilian for damaging their reputation.

It should never have come to that, of course.

Given the recent departure of Briatore and Symonds, clearly Renault knew that they were guilty – and their admittance of the charges underlines that.

Briatore, whose reputation for being combatant both at Renault and Queens Park Rangers FC has made him a fearsome figure, is likely to have to leave elite sport altogether now, and perhaps that is for the best.

That Renault have reversed their initial stance underlines how seriously they take these accusations and how damaging it could be for their future to be found guilty while trying to conceal the truth.

Former Formula One driver Eddie Irvine said today that every team tried to stretch and bend the rules wherever possible, which hardly helps the credibility of the sport.

Will Renault still have a team in 2010? Only the FIA, the sport’s governing body, know what they will do.

For the good of Formula One, a punishment of the utmost severity for actions which ultimately affected the course of a race weekend must be considered.

And for Renault, the slow job of restoring their reputation must be as comprehensive as possible with charitable initiatives, new codes of conduct, open and honest dialogue with every stakeholder.

Time is a healer and Formula One may be very separate to the consumer market, but Renault sales may be affected by the reputation of a company who showed no respect for the rules they proclaimed to support.
 
 
The power of the media is a curious thing.

Sometimes it can create madness and mayhem out of the most trivial of incidents.

Sometimes it can lead the fight for justice and the common good.

Thankfully, in the case of the Manchester United abusive chants, Amazon has withdrawn the offending album/MP3.

It took them four days and only after, it seems, Arsenal indicated that the offending chant was defamatory with all the legal implications that selling the MP3 could entail.

Media coverage of the chant's presence on Amazon has been widespread over the last few days and the wise move from a communications point of view would have been to remove the offending and offensive item immediately.

Even Manchester United criticsed the chant and its own fans for making such unfounded comments towards a rival manager.

I find it surprising, I must say, that Amazon missed the opportunity to take that stance without the need for the widespread media outrage and official Arsenal to provoke them into action.

The fact that they say in their statement that they needed to be told that the chant MP3 was defamatory without being able to work it out themselves; and that they would consider it censorship to remove the item had the threat of defamation not been made apparent seems incredible for an organisation the size of Amazon.

As the market leader, Amazon won't lose too many customers over this PR error, but I hope they learn the lesson that for a 69p clip that has a limited audience and a huge outrage value, they have damaged their reputation in a way that was entirely avoidable.
 
 
Competitive prices, a wide range of stock and a user-friendly interface have made Amazon one of the greatest success stories of the internet revolution.

While the millions of items Amazon sells make it difficult to keep a track of everything, one item in particular is going to cause it a huge amount of damage unless it acts swiftly.

I have to admit at this point that I am an Arsenal fan and proud of that fact.

I remember, however, watching games in the late 1970s and early 1980s and having so called ‘fans’ shouting monkey noises in front of me at their own players.

These were fans in the seats, not the terraces, and looked more educated than the average supporter of those days. Which made their idiotic ‘humour’ all the more distressing and despicable.

I will hold my hands up and admit that I too have booed or jeered opposing fans or managers in moments of frustration when an incident has provoked my ire.

But I will not nor will I stand for anyone around me making racist, homophobic or unacceptably abusive comments or chants. It’s just not on.

There were rumours when Arsenal’s manager, Arséne Wenger, first arrived at the club, that he was resigning immediately because of alleged accusations against him.

He stood on the front steps of Highbury Stadium and dared anyone to repeat them and the hoax was over.

That hasn’t stopped fans continuing to chant such slanderous abuse in Wenger’s direction – and now Amazon is selling a chant Mpeg which, while not identifying Wenger, echoes the fan sentiments in no uncertain terms.

One fan who has complained received a reply which referred to ‘freedom of expression…Amazon.co.uk believes it is censorship not to offer for sale certain titles with repugnant or distasteful content, and we would be rightly criticised if we did so. As a result, we will continue to make controversial works available in the UK and everywhere else, except where they are prohibited by law.”

So that basically means if anyone wants to sell something backing or supporting bombers or child kidnappers or suchlike will be acceptable unless banned by law?

The worst thing any company can do is allow itself to be seen to be motivated by money and the 69p the track costs is going to pale into insignificance compared to the bad publicity that will come its way.

Once the powers that be at Amazon realise their error, they should take immediate action to remove the offending clip from their catalogue.

In truth, all right-thinking football fans and the general public will abhor anything that not only crosses the boundaries of respectability, but shoots them down and spits on them as it does so.

Reputations can be lost swiftly when the public is alerted to what most rational people will consider to be an error of judgement.

If Amazon know what is good for them, they will issue a statement confirming the removal of the offending clip and vowing to take more care in assessing whether what they sell is acceptable or goes beyond the bounds of decency as is the case in this instance.
 
 
No, neither did I.

Can you imagine the FA Cup final, World Cup, Wimbledon, Open golf, Olympics or Six Nations being taken off terrestrial television?

While the magical summer of 2005 will live long in the memory, the England Ashes victory against Australia has been the preserve of Sky Sports subscribers and pub owners across the country.

Now, given the fact that cricket matches can last five days and therefore inevitably cross over to the working week, I’m not suggesting for one minute that when such events occur, we should all take days off to watch them.

But it would be nice to have the choice.

In these dark days of recession, spending £40+ to subscribe to Sky Sports is beyond a lot of people and as one of the ‘Crown Jewels’ of our sporting calendar, it should be on terrestrial television.

Surely, especially given the jubilation a cricket series win provokes in sports fans and the general public, not to mention one against Australia, removing it from the public consumption is, well, just not cricket.

The fact remains that Sky’s coverage is impressive – former captains such as Ian Botham, Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain plus Ashes legends such as Bob Willis and Shane Warne provide a range of opinions and analysis which are unrivalled, as is their High Definition camerawork.

And there’s no doubt that the money Sky provides has a positive impact on all sports – and cricket needs it at elite level as much as anything else.

But while they continue to offer such as high standard of production, sharing the live coverage with a terrestrial channel, as they do for the FA Cup final, is not such a crazy idea.

Of course, those of us without Sky have now been able to savour the delights of Test Match Special which, although not quite as good as having images, it so quintessentially English and irreverent that it never fails to entertain.

But with sport in the UK continuing to falter as sports grounds are closed and investment fails to materialise, how are the next generations going to be inspired if they cannot see the moments that make sport such great unscripted theatre?
 
 
It’s a big day for the International Softball Federation and their BackSoftball campaign to promote the sport’s reinstatement to the Olympic Games Programme in 2016.

Softball has come a long way since it was voted off the Programme in 2005 – and sellout crowds and a carnival atmosphere at the Beijing Games last summer only skims the surface of the contribution the sport makes to the Olympic movement.

Softball is a predominantly female sport – at a time when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is keen to promote female sports – and it’s clean anti-doping record; inclusivity and accessibility make a compelling case to the IOC.

The ISF realised in 2005 that they could do more to contribute to the Olympic values and set about a phenomenal initiative, modernising their organisation and providing programmes and support for national softball federations across the planet.

I’ve always been aware of softball as a sport played to a highly-professional level by advertising and marketing friends and it’s true that it is easy to learn and cheap to play.

But the level of camaraderie the sport provokes; the popularity of the sport in the Middle East or other conservative areas where female team sports are otherwise not permitted; and the sport’s fundamental ability to change lives through its global community programmes make it a great choice for the IOC Executive Board when they meet in Berlin today.

Even yesterday when the ISF visited a Berlin softball league, we discovered that the game in Germany is played by people aged three to over 60 from all walks of life and from all over the world.

It has been a privilege for Calacus to be a part of such a tremendous campaign with a team who deserves success when the announcement is made for the right to participate in the Olympic Games in 2016.

 

 
 
 
As a child, Ferrari were a brand that held a huge amount of mystique for me.

The magical designs of their cars, the power of their engines…they were synonymous with the Italian romance with cars.

When Michael Schumacher started winning Formula One championships at Ferrari, I could only drool at the mastery of his talent, the single-mindedness and drama of his success.

Of course, there were times when it would be easy to question whether he took gamesmanship and ruthlessness to a new level, but no one can doubt the talent of the man.

But, despite their superiority in recent years, it seems a shame that Ferrari have resorted to a schoolyard communications policy which will win them few friends.

Following the injuries suffered by Ferrari driver Felipe Massa recently, Schumacher was drafted in to replace him and applied to undertake some testing to get used to the car before the next race.

This contravenes F1 rules and, to me, seems crazy, since practice appears to be imperative to maintain efficiency –don’t footballers, tennis players and every other sportsman and sportswoman practise daily?

It seems that Ferrari’s application for an exemption to this testing rule was blocked by the Williams F1 team, along with Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

I cannot speculate about their reasons for objecting –and it can be argued that the rules should be maintained for everyone, regardless of team or status – but the same fate befell Jaime Alguersuari, when he replaced Sebastien Bourdais at Toro Rosso last month.

I can understand Ferrari’s frustration with the rules, their frustration with the objections from other teams, but, given their status as one of the legendary teams of F1, this was not a time to start whining about not getting their own way.

For those of you who didn’t see Ferrari’s statement, it read: "Guess who opposed the test? A team that hasn't won anything for years and yet didn't pass over the opportunity to demonstrate once more a lack of spirit of fair play.

"Just for the record, the Scuderia Ferrari had given its approval to let Alguersuari test, but it seems even in this instance someone decided to stick to the precise wording of the regulations."

Ferrari condemn themselves with their reference to the “precise wording of the regulations”, which, while common sense would say there should be some flexibility for exceptional circumstances, are put in place for a reason.

Ferrari would have been so much wiser to make a statement saying that they were disappointed with the ruling but respect it.

They could then add that they would invite the FIA and F1 chiefs to look into proving for some flexibility in the rules for forthcoming season.

This would allow them to maintain the moral high ground and not drag themselves into petty squabbles which tarnish the sport and has ultimately tarnished their reputation.
 
 

When I undertake media training or suggest that it would be a useful exercise for my clients, I often encounter the same one or two responses:

“I’m so used to doing media interviews, I don’t need any more training”

OR

“I watch media interviews on television all the time – it’s not hard so I don’t need any advice thanks”

As a former journalist, I know how hard it is and I often think I’m glad I’m the one in control and not the one answering the questions.

And that, of course, is the trick. Control the interview, control the situation, remain calm and do not say anything you have not prepared or are not confident about saying ‘on message’.

So I was fascinated yesterday to hear the press conference undertaken by golfer Sandy Lyle in relation to some comments he made last week and ahead of the Open golf championship, which starts today.

For those of you who don’t know, Lyle was asked if he missed out on the coveted Ryder Cup captaincy after walking off after 10 holes of last year's Open.

Ill-advisedly, he compared that incident to Colin Montgomerie accidentally dropping his ball in the wrong place after storms at the 2005 Indonesian Open.

“What he did was far worse,” said Lyle last week. “Monty dropped the ball badly and that is a form of cheating.”

Lyle realised, especially in the world of golf, with its gentleman’s rules and high regard for respect, that his comments were both damaging and inappropriate, especially since Montgomerie was cleared of any misdemeanour at the time, issued an apology for his mistake and donated his £24,000 prize money to charity.

Whether he was advised or not, Lyle absolutely did the correct thing in calling a press conference to apologise for his comments.

When a media storm breaks, especially ahead of a major event, facing the media and apologising for an error is the best way of dealing with it and hopefully softening its impact.

If Lyle had not spoken, it would perhaps have prolonged the “feud” as the media would phrase it, and detract from the important matter of the golf.

He admitted that bringing up the Montomerie incident, purely as a comparison to his own error, was a mistake. His wording was crisp and measured, his delivery sincere.

And that should have been that.

But where Lyle made a huge error was to answer questions from the media rather than finish his press conference there and then.

Perhaps he had been suitably media trained. Perhaps he had been rigorously briefed about potential questions and answers, primed for all the inevitable interrogation that would come his way.

My advice to him, on this occasion, would have been to make his statement and leave it at that.

It gave the media enough to feed on and showed that he had been suitably concerned to face them after his mistake.

Whether he had not been briefed or simply forgot his answers, the result was disastrous – a car crash of a press conference which saw Lyle say of Montgomerie's 2005 incident that “It was one of his mistakes....it will probably live with him for the rest of his life. It'll be cropping up.”

After resisting the opportunity to speak, Montgomerie was fully justified in eventually making a calm and measured comment about Lyle’s press conference, simply saying “It's a rather strange apology to be honest.”

That understatement gave Montgomerie the high ground and leaves Lyle looking even more foolish, especially when George O'Grady, chief executive of the European Tour, chipped in with a statement, claiming Lyle’s comments “are considered wholly inappropriate and ill-timed.”

Avoiding the media is never a good idea. Fronting up and showing contrition is the best way to limit damage and rebuild a reputation.

But know what you’re going to say and don’t waver from what you’ve planned to say.

Lyle has lost the respect of a great many people because he simply did not follow those simple rules.

It will take a well-crafted communications campaign to restore his reputation but, to use his own phrase, no doubt, this incident will “keep cropping up” and it was so easily avoided.