formula

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, one of the top Democrats running for California governor, on Friday blasted USC and the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles for hosting a debate that he argues purposely excludes all candidates of color.

Becerra said he and the other candidates were excluded from the televised debate unfairly, a decision that he said “smells of election rigging” in a hotly contested race less than three months before the June primary.

“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed,’” Becerra wrote in a public letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”

The university said in a statement that it authorized a political expert to create the formula to determine who would be included in the debate.

“At the request of the Center for the Political Future, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology that determined eligibility for the debate,” according to a statement from the center. “No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”

The center later said in a statement on Friday that it reiterated the criteria that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate, and that nothing had changed since the forum was first planned.

The criteria for gubernatorial candidates to participate considered opinion polling and campaign fund raising. Six candidates were asked to participate in the March 24 debate, which is cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision.

There was conflicting information about USC’s stated criteria, however. The methodology says that the fundraising totals considered were based on semi-annual reports campaigns filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, the document later says that the fundraising figures also includes large donations that campaigns are required to immediately report.

This is a critical difference, because San José Mayor Matt Mahan did not enter the race until late January, and thus far has not been required to file any semi-annual fundraising disclosures with the state. However, he has received significant donations since he entered the race.

Mahan agreed with Becerra, saying that he ought to be part of public forums about who will lead the state.

“The former Secretary is absolutely correct, he should be included in the debate,” Mahan said in a statement. “His long record of service to California has earned him a place on every debate stage in this campaign for Governor.”

USC officials said they are clarifying how they selected candidates to participate in the race.

“We are reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula,” the Center for the Political Future said in a statement. “We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”

Grose said that the selection of candidates was based upon polling and fundraising numbers, and that the sentence about semi-annual fundraising reports was inaccurate.

“It was just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” he said.

Six candidates are scheduled to appear at the debate: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton; and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer and Mahan.

The kerfuffle occurs after Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of trying to oust them from the race in favor of white candidates, who have more support in opinion polls.

In addition to Becerra, other prominent Democratic candidates excluded from the debate include former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also condemned the candidate-selection formula.

“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices,” Villaraigosa, who taught public policy at USC for three years after leaving office, said in a statement. “But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”

Becerra said USC went to great lengths to justify the candidates that were excluded, but the bias was clear.

“You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” he said.

Becerra was clearly referring to Mahan, who recently entered the race and has received millions of dollars of support from Silicon Valley leaders. Becerra noted that veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, which is a sponsor of the debate, is assisting an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan.

Murphy said he had recused himself from anything involved in the debate, and that he was a volunteer for the outside group backing Mahan. If he becomes a paid advisor to the independent expenditure committee, he said he has requested unpaid leave from the university through the June 2 primary.

“I’ve been transparent that I’m personally a Mahan supporter,” Murphy said. “I’ve had zero to do with the debate.”

F1’s technical changes pose challenges for drivers and engineers alike while raising concerns about the quality of racing.

Formula One’s new era ⁠starts at this weekend’s season-opening ⁠Australian Grand Prix, where teams will leap into the unknown and grapple with sweeping technical changes under race conditions for the first time.

F1 has simultaneously overhauled chassis and power unit regulations for the first time ⁠in decades, posing a challenge for drivers and engineers while raising concerns about the quality of racing.

With near-parity between electrical and combustion engines and cars running on 100 percent advanced sustainable fuel, drivers gained some insight into the changes during winter testing. But all ⁠are in the dark about how the reset will play out when going wheel-to-wheel on race day.

“I’m certainly more comfortable now than I was a couple of months ago with how to drive these cars and how to try and get the most out of them,” McLaren’s Oscar Piastri told reporters on Wednesday.

“But I think there’s still the saying of ‘You don’t know what you don’t know.’”

Australian Piastri said McLaren ‌thought they had the cars worked out two months ago, only to find they had “a whole bunch of stuff” they did not understand during winter testing.

With more power generated by electricity than last year’s engines, there is more emphasis on drivers needing to be tactical with energy deployment and regeneration.

The old drag reduction system has been replaced by a new overtake mode, giving extra power for overtaking.

Four-time world champion Max Verstappen described the changes as “like Formula E on steroids” and “anti-racing”.

Formula One Chief Executive Stefano Domenicali defended them and assured fans there will still be plenty of thrills.

The changes may have different effects at ⁠different circuits, leaving all teams to learn on the fly, week by week.

Piastri said Sunday’s race ⁠at Albert Park, a suburb of Melbourne, would probably showcase the more “unnatural” parts of driving.

“You know, a lot more lift and coast, a lot more kind of just driving to maximise the power unit,” he said.

“You’ve got power units that are reducing in power down the straights at different points. And there’s a lot of unknowns, ⁠a lot of challenges in there.”

The new regulations raised hopes of a more open championship and the prospect of a disruptor team emerging to force change at the top. But preseason testing in ⁠Bahrain hinted at a familiar top four, with Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and ⁠McLaren all performing well.

Audi team principal Jonathan Wheatley said the gap between the “best and the rest” might only widen.

“I think it’s going to be a very different year in terms of the competitiveness in the sport,” he told the Reuters news agency. “We’re already seeing the gap between the fastest teams and the slowest teams but larger than it’s been ‌in the last few years.”

Whatever the pecking order, F1 race tracks will be more crowded with the addition of the new Cadillac team although there may be more breathing room at Albert Park, given Aston Martin’s preseason troubles.

Despite the technical guidance of Adrian ‌Newey, ‌who joined from Red Bull, the Honda-powered team completed few laps during winter testing and have reliability problems.

The AMR26 cars will be in Australia – something of a relief for F1 management – but may only race for a few laps before retiring.

Mercedes’ rivals have succeeded in securing a rule change following a pre-season technical row over engine performance.

Audi, Ferrari, Red Bull and Honda had been pushing for a change in the regulation governing compression ratios on the basis they believed Mercedes had secured an advantage through clever use of materials technology.

Formula 1’s governing body the FIA said on Saturday that a change to the way the compression ratio was measured would be introduced on 1 June, with a further revision for the 2027 season.

A statement said the rule change had been approved unanimously by all power-unit manufacturers.

The compression ratio is a measurement of the cylinder displacement between the two extremes of the piston stroke. Typically, an increase will lead to more power.

Some estimates of the gain Mercedes could be achieving have been as much as 0.3 seconds a lap, but Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff has said it amounts to “a few horsepower – in England you would say a couple, which is more like two and three”.

The original rule stated the ratio would be limited to 16:1 in the new engine rules introduced this year – a change from 18:1 under the previous regulations – and this was measured at ambient temperature.

Mercedes’ rivals were pushing for the compression ratio to be measured at operating temperature.

The Mercedes engine has been measured by the FIA at both ambient and operating temperature and complied with the limit of 16:1 at all times, senior F1 insiders have told BBC Sport.

Compression ratios tend to decrease as an engine rises in temperature because of thermal expansion of the materials involved. The belief was Mercedes had found a more effective way to limit this loss than other manufacturers.

From 1 June, the compression ratio will be measured at 130C as well as ambient temperature, and from next year only at 130C.

That means that from next year, manufacturers will be able to have engines that exceed a compression ratio of 16:1 at ambient temperature, even though this reduction from the previous limit was introduced into the 2026 regulations to make the rules more appealing to new manufacturers.

Audi and Ford both entered F1 because they were attracted by the new power-unit rules, which introduce a near 50-50 split between internal combustion and electrical power, and Honda reversed a decision to quit.

A statement from the FIA said: “A significant effort has been invested in finding a solution to the topic of compression ratio.

“The regulations introduced for 2026 represent one of the biggest changes in recent memory.

“All parties acknowledge that with the introduction of such significant regulatory changes, there are collective learnings to be taken from pre-season testing and the initial rounds of the 2026 championship.

“Further evaluation and technical checks on energy management matters are ongoing.”

This last sentence is a reference to discussions over energy deployment and recovery.

Drivers have complained that because cars are energy starved this has led to unusual and counter-intuitive driving techniques – and there are various proposals to change the rules to make energy management easier.