FIA press release
World Motor Sport Council - Decision
26.07.2007
:
An extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council was held in Paris on 26 July, 2007. The following decision was taken:
?The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code. However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship. We therefore impose no penalty.
?But if it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite Vodafone McLaren Mercedes back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship.
?The WMSC will also invite Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan to show reason why they should not be banned from international motor sport for a lengthy period and the WMSC has delegated authority to deal with this matter to the legal department of the FIA.?
|
>>
McLaren team chief Ron Dennis' immediate reaction was that he was "not completely comfortable with the outcome but the punishment fits the crime," and that a formal comment from the team would come later.
|
>>Well they have "got off with it" to quote the BBC. Insufficient evidence. >>
Frankly (or perhaps I should say in F1 terms Ronly!) I am amazed that no penalty was required, clear evidence - Coughlan, a McLaren employee, had Ferrari IP and article 3.1 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, states:
"It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Agreement, the Code, the Technical Regulations and the Sporting Regulations."
|
An interesting comment about the outcome.
Viewed from a distance, this was an extremely elegant solution. McLaren was saved the prospect of commercial meltdown, the FIA reminded the wider world that it was even-handed and the fact that it reached this decision in the face of a mountain of persuasive evidence to the contrary from Ferrari scotched for good the notion that the governing body is in Maranello's pocket. Not a bad day, then.
Alan Henry -Autocar
|
|
Until the enquiry into Coughlan and Stepney unveils nore damning evidence perhaps.
|
"It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Agreement, the Code, the Technical Regulations and the Sporting Regulations."
in reply to cheddar:
so by your quoted regulation, ferrari should be punished for the actions of stepney?
as i see it; allegedly:
employee a of company x passes data to employee b of company y without the permission or knowledge of companies x and/or y.
employees a and b aproach company z to test possible future employment.
now if i was company y, i would wonder whether its employee b had information from company y also stored at home without authorisation.
|
No, what McLaren should have done when they found out Coughlin had the document, (which they did, this is not in dispute), is inform the FIA, order Coughlin to hand it over, then destroy it. Also of suspicion is that the "letter of clarification" of the moveable floor row was sent and signed by Martin Whitmarsh, CEO of McLaren........funny that isn't it. Also farcical is the lack of proof that any advantage has been gained.....they have a wealth of info on the Ferrari F2007, now without actually copying designs this surely is a huge advantage.
|
Ferrari fume at ruling.
Lots of words here.
tinyurl.com/2lakpo
|
|
|
|
in reply to cheddar: so by your quoted regulation ferrari should be punished for the actions of stepney?
No, Ferrari have nothing to gain from Stepney's (alleged) actions, to the contrary they had/have everything to lose. Where as Coughlan's (alleged) actions were potentially (or i reckon actually) to McLaren's advantage.
An analogy, if a clerk steals from the bank in which he works he is prosecuted, not the bank, however if he steals from another bank and his employer either knows about or condones his actions then his employer is equally guilty.
|
An analogy, if a clerk steals from the ..
now you are putting your own interpretation of a rule which you quoted and is quite unambigiuos in its meaning. ferrari are responsible for the actions of its employees. full stop.
|
now you are putting your own interpretation of a rule which you quoted and is quite unambigiuos in its meaning. ferrari are responsible for the actions of its employees. full stop.
No Dalglish.
Article 3.1 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations "It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Agreement, the Code, the Technical Regulations and the Sporting Regulations."
I dont have to read the Agreement, Code, Tech Regs and Sporting Regs to know that they dont say "competitors should ensure that their employees do not steal their IP and pass it on to another competitor or employee thereof".
However they probably does say something like "competitors should ensure that their employees do not steal or receive IP belonging to another competitor".
|
I dont have to read the Agreement, Code, Tech Regs and Sporting Regs ..
in reply to cheddar:
"McLaren are being summoned for an alleged breach of article 151c of the international sporting code which covers 'any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motorsport in general'.
that applies equally to ferrari. hence the pending actions against two employees of mclaren and ferrari.
in reply to woodbines.
ferrari are reported to be furious. see
tinyurl.com/3dsbgv
|
>> that applies equally to ferrari. hence the pending actions against two employees of mclaren and ferrari.
I dont think it applies equally to Ferrari because it does not cover an action by an employee against the interests of his/her employer and without the employers knowledge.
However it clearly does cover actions taken by an employee that are to the detriment of a competitor to his/her employer with or without their employer's knowledge, in this respect McLaren were aware that Coughlan had the documents which makes them implicit in his actions.
I am amazed that McLaren have got away with it, I wonder if there is something in the Alan Henry quote above "scotched for good the notion that the governing body is in Maranello's pocket" though action will be taken against McLaren at a later date based on evidence from Coughlan and Stepney.
|
if so, then logically, that can only be proven by being tested in court, then the FIA can act, but not before.
Re the quote above, from my earlier post - it's not viable for the FIA to impose any sanction in the absence of 'courts of law' levels of proof that McLaren gained advantage or caused Ferrari disadavantage for any purported wrong-doing ( even by through own regulatory framework)
As for the future: it's highly unlikely Ferrari will pursue this, reasoning that they haven't really lost anything (especially with the rate of technological developent in F1) & probably gained at least the 'psychological' advantage if not a public relations coup. They've also 'neutralised' a key technical player at McLaren & saved themselves any redundancy payments to a former employer.
So, game, set & match Ferrari - I wonder how it will affect the current F1 championship though?
|
it's highly unlikely Ferrari will pursue this reasoning that they haven't really lost anything ..................>> So game set & match Ferrari - I wonder how it will affect the current F1 championship though?
I wondered how McLaren knew about Ferrari's flexible floor, it seems that Stepney told Coughlan, surely then Coughlan would have read more detail about it in the Ferrari docs he has in his posession at the time, and what did he do with that information ...........................
Reckon this will run and run, more evdence will come to light re that cases against Coughlan and Stepney.
I am more and more in sympathy with Ferrari I must say.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed McClaren have "got off". I just wonder what would have happened to Ferrari had the whole thing been the other way round.
|
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61180
I have every symapthy with Ferrari and can only think that the FIA expect more evidence to come to light before throwing the book at McLaren.
|
I have every symapthy with Ferrari
i have none. they got found out for using an illegal flexible floor design.
how - because allegedly a disgruntled badly treated employee leaked the info to a rival team.
now ferrari are trying to exact revenge for other alleged misdemeanours of thier ex-employee.
it is pure and simple. if they had treated the employee well, and/or had better controlled what their employee got up to, and/or had better systems for protecting their precious designs/drawings, then ferrari would not have any cause to complain.
and it riles ferrari that mclaren are doing well when ferrari are not doing so well.
mclaren are the innocent party in this, having been dragged in to ferrari internal matters due to an employee allegedly passing info to a mclaren employee.
get over it. mclaren (the company) cannot be held responsible for what their employee does at home.
|
they got found out for using an illegal flexible floor design.>>
It was not illegal, as is the way it was an interpretation of the rules, the rules were later clarified requiring them to modify the design. The question is how did Mclaren know what Ferrari were doing so as to ask for the clarification.
>>mclaren (the company) cannot be held responsible for what their employee does at home.>>
It was not just at home, re the floor point and re the fact that other McLaren execs knew that he had the data though said / did nothing.
mclaren are the innocent party >>
Now that is just ridiculous Dalglish and does not bear further comment other than to say that my views on the matter are the antithesis of yours in every respect.
|
cheddar:
you may enjoy reading this (views from all over the world, some like mine, some like yours ) :
tinyurl.com/25xqkh
Made non-clickable in accordance with the policy on the "other place" - PU
|
It will be interesting to find out what has really happened here, if we ever do.
Enzo Ferrari had a reputation as a harsh, ruthless and arbitrary employer. I imagine the tradition still lives on in the firm/team. As suggested above, this may well have some sort of role in the spying story.
I find both Ron Dennis and Jean Todt sympathetic figures, as represented by the media, but doubt very much that either is a pussy cat or teddy bear.
As for flexible floors, little green men in the cambox and other technical advances later declared illegal, long may they continue. They are what racing is all about.
|
... tinyurl.com/25xqkh Made non-clickable in accordance with the policy on the "other place" - PU
pu - no problem with that. the link was actually short enoough to fit the page, and the only reason i went via tinyurl was to avoid the "other place" getting a mention. ( i had seen this technique used before on this forum when linking to the other place without falling foul of the clickable criteria. ) anyway, message understood and taken on board for future.
|
Spying and skullduggery have long been an esential part of F1. Little is mentioned about the time McLaren caught a Ferrari mechanic skulking around in the team transporter. They simply locked the doors on him and drove him back to Woking, were he had to find his own way home.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
back to Woking were he had to find his own way home.
Perhaps he couldn't afford to get back home, sought temporary work in a Prontaprint or similar outlet and was still there when the Ferrari Book of Dark Secrets arrived for copying...
|
Little is mentioned about the time McLaren caught a Ferrari mechanic skulking around in the team transporter. They simply locked the doors on him and drove him back to Woking were he had to find his own way home.
Probably because it is not true. It is a variation of an age old story that keeps doing the rounds. Patrick Head gave the full story in an interview several years ago. It was senior member of the Lotus team who got locked in the Williams transporter.
|
Ah but its a fine story. Plus it proves that espionage is part of the game
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
I'd love to know why Nigel Stepney has either sold Ferrari down the river or been sat upon rather unpleasantly. There must be a yarn there.
|
Nigel Stepney has either sold Ferrari down the river >>
No, I dont think the tail is wagging the dog.
|
I'd love to know why Nigel Stepney has either sold Ferrari down the river or been sat upon rather unpleasantly. There must be a yarn there.
westpig: the story behind stepney's disillusionment and his subsequent job description changes at ferrari (including his final job there which restricted him from attending races) are catalogued on sites such as f1.com, itv-f1.com, f1fanatic.co.uk, and in the national newspapers - eg. sport.guardian.co.uk/motorsport
(if that is what you were asking).
|
|
It seems that Stepney expeceted a significant promotion when Ross Brawn departed, he did not get it and fell out with Jean Todt over it.
|
Interstingly the vote on formula1.com:
Do you agree with the FIA's decision not to punish McLaren?
Is currently:
Yes 31%
No 62%
Don't know 5%
|
|
I agree. I noticed in the McLaren response (on autosport) they claim to not know why there is an appeal since both teams put their cases forward in the original hearing. Quite the reverse of every other report Ive read, which state Ferrari were there as observers and weren't allowed to give evidence.
|
The Formula One spying row has taken a new turn after McLaren accused Ferrari of winning this year's Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/69...m
|
after McLaren accused Ferrari of winning this year's Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.
It was not illegal, as is the way it was an interpretation of the rules, the rules were later clarified requiring them to modify the design. The question is how did Mclaren know what Ferrari were doing so as to ask the FIA for the clarification.
Ron could have shot himself in the foot with that one.
|
It was not illegal,
i would rather take ron's word for it than yours as to whether it was legal or illegal. unless you can show are better qualified, of course.
ron's letter in full at:
www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/8/6569.html
|
In that case you should take Jean Todts word that what McLaren have done is illegal, and they have gained an advantage!
What McLaren dont point out in the letter is that BMW were also running that system, and for the second race more than half the grid had to modify their floors. (Although I have since heard some of these had to because of the altering of the test). But it shows just how more than one team interpreted the rules, and wasnt Ferrari trying to cheat, as is inferred in the letter of Dennis's.
|
In that case you should take Jean Todts word ...
choose between an enlishman's word vs that of a frenchman; or an enlgish team vs an italian team ? (exception - the english cricket jelly baby team ).
( thinks? noe who gave forewarning of bombing raids to milosovik and saddam? ).
|
>>.. would rather take ron's word for it than yours as to whether it was legal or illegal ..
and that of the fia:
Under Articles 3.15 and 3.17.4 of the Technical Regulations, bodywork must be rigid and no freedom of movement is permitted at all. McLaren specifically have asked the FIA for clarification on the matter. As a result the FIA issued a statement which reads:
?The test described in Article 3.17.4 is intended to test the flexibility of bodywork in that area, not the resistance of a device fitted for the purpose of allowing the bodywork to move further once the maximum test load is exceeded. Quite clearly, any such device would be designed to permit flexibility and is therefore strictly prohibited by Article 3.15 of the Technical Regulations.
ferrari did not dispute this, and immediately obeyed. quite clearly, they had been found out breaking the rules of the sport and would have continued doing so had a whistleblower in the ferrari camp not revealed the dodgy goings on.
|
"Ron could have shot himself in the foot with that one"
Best form of defence might be attack here also.
Ron Dennis seems to be saying that the Ferrari designer got in touch with Mclaren and told them and they then went to the FIA. We all know they did go to the FIA and had to have found out somehow or why would the FIA listen. Could find the FIA have to concede this one, perhaps strengthening the Mclaren defence.
All a shame really as it's the first season I've been following it for ages, including thw qualifying.
|
I said "Ron could have shot himself in the foot with that one", well here is the next twist, contrary to Ron's statement Stepney denies tipping off McLaren.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285
|
|
All that fuss about about a big scalectrix
|
.. Stepney denies tipping off McLaren.
nothing new about that. stepney has consistenly denied all allegations so far made against him.
(which is why in my posts i have consistently said "alleged" or "allegations" ).
i cannot find if coughlan has made any public personal statement so far, although it is reported that he has given a statement to ferrari.
the only official statements have been by ferrari, mclaren, fia and macaluso; and the denials by stepney's lawyer.
|
I wonder if Ron may have incriminated his team in his letter to Malacuso, he admits that they were tipped off and says it was Stepney however Stepney denies it. So if it were not Stepney who was it, perhaps Coughlan based on the Ferrari IP that Mclaren were not, according to Ron, supposed to have know about or seen in any official capacity, he say Coughlan was a rogue agent.
So in addition to who tipped of McLaren there is the matter of where Coughlan got the Ferrari IP from if not from Stepney. Seems to me that the only alternative to Stepney being guilty is that there is another gulity party who has tried to set up Stepney.
|
|
IIRC Coughlan made a sworn affadavit to Ferrari in the High Court, the fact that they are so keen to persue the case makes me think that that this affadavit has given them damning evidence against McLaren, evidence that was not heard in the first hearing because Ferrari were only there as observers (Malacuso's point).
|
.. evidence that was not heard in the first hearing because Ferrari were only there as observers (Malacuso's point).
this claim is denied by ron dennis in his letter:
www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/8/6569.html
to quote ron dennis:
...Other matters
Your letter also suggests that the outcome might have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those offered. I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.
First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages. Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents. In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.
In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence. It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.
I therefore simply do not understand what basis there is for Ferrari's claim that it was denied an opportunity to put its case. It put its case both in writing and orally.
I respectfully ask you and the ACI-CSAI to look at the hard facts of this matter in an objective and fair manner rather than being influenced by selective and misleading statements put out with the object of damaging McLaren . ...
|
This flies in the face of what the FIA themselves say..............
In a letter replying to Macaluso, Mosley said the matter will now be taken to the Court of Appeal, where Ferrari will be able to give their version of the story.
The Italian squad were unable to appeal the verdict as they were only invited to last week's WMSC hearing.
"Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered," wrote Mosley in the letter.
So on one hand we have Ferrari stating they had no official capacity in the meeting, the FIA confirming this, and Dennis saying they had there say. Is this a play on words from Dennis because Ferrari did actually say something, even if not in an official capacity?
|
Is this a play on words from Dennis because Ferrari did actually say something even if not in an official capacity?
No more like Dennis squirming IMO.
|
in reply to pr{p}:
read the mosley letter again and let me highlight some bits that you quote from mosley's letter:
"Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered," wrote Mosley in the letter.
so you see, ferrari did have a say in an official capacity at the fia meeting, as is confirmed by mosley. it is just that ferrari feel that they wanted to have "further opportunities" beyond those in fact offered.
|
|
But they were there as observers, they were able to say things as I said, but if the outcome would have been different because of things they had to say but couldn't, what is wrong with giving them a chance to say them? They obviously would have said them there had they been permitted. Why else drag everyone back, why didnt they just let them say what they wanted to at the first meeting? Answer because it was outside thier rights as observers.
|
The following is a quote from Ferrari in response to Dennis's letter to Macaluso, it is much as I have said before on a few occasions regarding the interpretation and clarification of rules:
"The two F2007 cars used in the Australian Grand Prix were deemed by the Stewards to be in conformity with the technical regulations, before, during and at the end of the event. If there had been any illegalities, they would have been disqualified.
"In fact, what the FIA did next is commonplace. The FIA took the opportunity to issue a clarification on the interpretation of the regulation and then asked the teams concerned to make the necessary modifications."
|
... quote from Ferrari in response to Dennis's letter to Macaluso ..
quote from "mandy rice davies" of "profumo" fame, at the "stephen ward trial": " .. ......, .......'. ..? "
well you can fill in the gaps, can't you.
|
quote from "mandy rice davies" of "profumo" fame at the "stephen ward trial": " .. ...... .......'. ..? "
I'll have a pint of whatever you are drinking Dalglish ;-)
|
|
|
|
