I have this friend… Decent enough sort of chap in an amusing kind of way. Perhaps a little too loud and opinionated but ever able to quote undisclosed "special sources". Of course the veracity of the sources is never forthcoming. According to my friend, should the logic demanding the demise of Max Mosley in the ways of his recent video be extended to the houses of Westminster, England's parliament might suddenly become a quiet and lonely place.

No, I am not excusing Max by way of comparison to his peers - one of the oldest tricks in the book. "I may be bad but I am not as bad as…" And I am sure Max could care less either way what I think anyway.

Fact is I am on public record as repeatedly mauling Max's edicts in his role as supreme, elected master of the F.I.A.

So if Max's leadership of the FIA was currently under threat because he refuses to address the boredom of current F1 by way of reducing the dependency on downforce over mechanical grip, the handling of the Stepney affair or even his rather odd posturing over Honda having much the same fuel cell as every other team on the grid, I'd be at the head of the queue to dig his professional grave and dance upon it as soon as the hole was filled. And here I name but a few of my private grievances with Max.

But Max is not under threat for any of the right reasons.

Max is under threat because seemingly somebody paid somebody who likely paid somebody else and then paid somebody who paid somebody to record images of what Max does in his spare time. Finally a facsimile of news service offered that footage to the public. My memory is not what it once was but I have a suspicion that the same news service once claimed to have photographs of a Second World War bomber aircraft on the Planet Mars.

I am all at once reminded of my authoritive chum with the unsubstantiated sources.

Personally, I can live with the notion that the incumbent, elected president of the FIA might be willing to pay for a jolly good flogging in a house of ill repute. I pity him as much but I pity more the motives of those who saw fit to pay for such scenes to become public.

Somewhere, somebody has something to gain by making Max's private life public. Or perhaps somebody has a score to settle by the same means. Consider the last two sentences and form your own list of suspects. Your speculation may one day form the basis of a bestselling crime novel.

Whatever I or anyone else may think, Max's behaviour is now in the public domain and he is necessarily dealing with his conundrum in this context. But what of those who likely paid to make it public? Here we speak of advance warning, hidden cameras and lines to publishing forums, none of which happen by accident.

Perhaps I am a boring slave to whodunit novels but I should rather like to know who saw fit to arrange the footage of Max, their motives and, quite frankly, how much they paid.

I am also reminded of the sagacious Mike Lawrence who so unerringly choruses his favoured phrase, "follow the money".

Permit me to be rhetorically blunt in the way only Antipodeans seem capable. Should Max's private proclivities preclude him from his elected roll at the FIA? Moreover, of the voices presently calling for Max to resign, who among them are so piously perfect as to moralise?