Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but Autosport's headlines only mention Massa was Montezemolo's choice, but seemed to have neglected what seems to be a very contiversial interview. Any reason why the full interview was not reported by Autosport? Some quotes below.

Title: Montezemolo attacks the FIA "Treachery could have won"

"I've read that Bernie has spoken about the colour of Hamilton's skin and that it would have been nice if he was also a muslim. Bernie would do better and say that FIA council, that handed down that shameful penalty, was humiliating for evryone, begining with himself.

"It was the championship of poision, we saw people that lied, people that improved the performance of their car in a non spoting manner, we've seen our work concentrated on searching for unmistakable proof on the treachery committed. We have lived through ugly and difficult periods, but the ugliest was when the sentence of the FIA coucil was handed down, an obsurd sentence in which treachery was affirmed, but was not dealt with in the sentence.

"In the end we had a double saddisfaction. What we were saying was confirmed, the lie was unmasked. The sentence was unexceptable. A precedent that could have run the risk of allowing the absurd, a jockey that runs with a dopped horse that in the end wins. I was already thinking of running the following season with a 8000cc motor. They would have disqualified the car but the driver would have won.

Then at the end he mentions Massa and about his desicion to resign him, which Autosport just reported on.
Am I missing somthing here or is Autosport got a bit of selective journalism? Quotes from Jackie Stewart and Sterling Moss seem to make the headlines?

I dunno I think they are doing Montezemelo and Ferrari a favour by not printing them. His comments are of the sort that undermine the moral authority of Ferrari. Better to leave the whinging to their competitors and behave with some humility in victory

In fact Montezemelo has been more vocal of late than I can ever recall. And it's particularly unsettling as wasn't it Monte that in 2004 spoke of a Scuderia behaving with [the] 'grace and humility that I like'?

I wonder if he has some domestic political aims and using the tired old stratagem of milking a popular success story combined with an (apparent) external oppressor/enemy to canvass support?

Either way I don't like it and I would prefer Monte display more of the circumspection that has seemed to dominate Todt's era at Ferrari.

Interesting. F1-Live has reported it, and it certainly seems newsworthy to me.

Luca wants Alonso in the team!

Sorry but it's too late isn't it? He's already said it, and other sources have reported it. The cat is out of the bag whether you agree with him or not. So why not report it?

Thing is, Mr Montezemolo is 100% correct in what he says

I get the feeling that the new revision of the Oxford English Dictionary would include de Montezemolo in the definition of "hypocrite", if these comments are accurate.

It's absolutely news worthy.

I am very disappointed that we did not report it, but it was an oversight on our part, and nothing more.

how so? he is saying like he has said all along, that if Mclaren were to win the championship, their victory would be poisoned.

I thought that spot was allready taken by "honest ron"?

I think Luca should really let the matter lie now. Whilst I agree with his comments, Ferrari have won both championships. It's true that Ferrari could of easily missed out on the WDC and in this case he would have every right to voice his concerns but since they won its time to draw a line and forget.

Thank you ascoli, I'm amazed this wasn't reported on this site, his affirmation of Massa is simply a side issue. Surely these comments of di Montezemolo bring Ecclestone, the FIA and F1 into disrepute? Has that half wit called Mosley managed to formulate an answer? ...Oh sorry, the half wit was Stewart for saying exactly the same thing but concluding that the conspiracy was to Ferrari's benefit, rather than Hamilton's.

I think you're reaching a little bit. His comments are pretty unnecessary though.

I am starting to like this dude..

I like how he criticized Bernie when he mentioned Lewis color as being a plus for the sport and his favoritism .

I had posted the exact same comment yesterday about the FIA's bias towards Hamilton.

Problem with that is that it is double standards.

Ferrari gets more from the common pool of money because of their 'special' status. And you can scream and whinge about it, but Hamiltons skin colour does bring in new fans and revenue. You only have to look at golf to realise how these things work.

So for LdM to want special treatment for him and Ferrari because of their contribution and not for LH and McLaren can be seen as hypocritical.

And that without mentioning Monaco 2006 and his reaction to MS's parking manouvers.

I'm not saying LdM is worse than any of the other team principals. I'm just saying that of all the people involved I wouldn't think he should throw the first, second or even third stone.