Ecclestone just on News 24 saying that apparently someone came out of the WMSC meeting minutes before it ended and told press Mclaren excluded for 2 years. It seems it came that close because there was a change of heart.
Maybe £50m fine was better than that outcome.
|
Ecclestone just on News 24 saying that apparently someone came out of the WMSC meeting minutes before it ended and told press Mclaren excluded for 2 years. It seems it came that close because there was a change of heart. Maybe £50m fine was better than that outcome.
>>
news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/69...m
Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone says McLaren were "minutes away" from being thrown out of the World Championships of 2007 and 2008
But Ecclestone told the BBC: "It came very close to McLaren being thrown out, it really was a genuine possibility.
"A few of us sort of battled on and campaigned for the fine instead."
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia also says that Mosley was interested for a time in becoming a Conservative MP, but switched allegiance to Labour after meeting John Smith. In the late fifties though (when still a schoolboy, or virtually) he campaigned on the streets for his father in a by-election here in my manor. Of course when young one is justified in showing family solidarity, and at Oxford Mosley's image was pleasant, bland and (by contrast with his colourful parents) unexceptional.
I went out of curiosity to one of his father's meetings, in the now-demolished Latimer Road Baths. It was an interesting, somewhat agitated occasion, with no noticeable violence but quite a lot of strange epithets being flung about ('Wot abaht the 'Ottentots?' was one feed from a supporter in the audience. Sir Oswald had a puzzling amount to say about Hottentots). Most of the audience, which was quite large, consisted of his supporters, working-class whites from Notting Dale 'worried about immigration'. But Sir Oswald was already well out of synch with the modern world. This was apparent even to me in my ignorant and irresponsible youth.
Max however is another matter altogether, someone plugged in to the way things are done now as well as the way they used to be done.
|
How to reduce the £50 deficit... Rob's way:
1. Alonso was implicated so lets partly blame him.
2. Deny knowledge and say Alonso implicated.
3. Alonso not happy anyway
4. No need to pay the rest of Alonso's salary so save a few million.
5. Hamilton wins championship - sponsor's happy
6. Appeal on basis that Alonso did a lot of this.
What do people think ;-)
|
Oh and there's this supporting my idea for Ron...
"There is intense speculation about a meeting between Alonso and Ron Dennis, the McLaren principal, at the Hungarian Grand Prix, when it is thought the subject of emails containing confidential information pertaining to Ferrari was discussed.
There are reports that Dennis subsequently made the decision to inform the FIA about the emails, which form the basis of the FIA's findings against McLaren."
I'll wait for the reply from Mclaren via email.... well they might reply with something.
|
"Despite de la Rosa specifically requesting Ferrari's weight distribution data to test in the simulator, he subsequently decided that the figures were so different to those on the McLaren that it would not be worth comparing. The WMSC, however, claimed that it was 'highly unlikely' that a test driver would take a decision of that sort on his own, and added that it was not clear why, if the information was 'unimportant', he would still convey and discuss it with Alonso some days later."
Well I know the Ferrari has a longer wheel base than the Mclaren. A reason why some circuits favour Mclaren and others Ferrari. It was one reason why people dismissed some of this - weight distribution and therefore (probalbly) tyre wear info not so relevant.
Now strategy for drivers is in part down to drivers and their subet of the team and therefore if Alonso was in the know and Hamilton not... well maybe it was less than a team cheating. If true this would be sad.
And if Mclaren has reported Renault to the FIA for something... maybe Renault and Alonso had spies last season? Who knows. The more I think of this season the less I like F1. But I still hope Hamilton wins - he seems a nic, genuine, honest person.
|
The Moseley vs Dennis situation is given some coverage by pitpass.com
pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32733
pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=21545
The second link quotes Moseley about 10 paras from the end "There's one F1 principal ....not perhaps the sharpest knife in the block".
|
"There's one F1 principal ....not perhaps the sharpest knife in the block".
Is he suggesting that our Ron's fick or summin?
Ahd e get where 'e's got ven?
|
|
|
|
And if Mclaren has reported Renault to the FIA for something...
After having a read through all the evidence, Stepney's motivation seems to be more to hurt Ferrari than curry favour with McLaren's management; is it not possible that he was broadcasting this damaging information to anyone who would listen?
Clearly those of a suspect character, like Coughlan and Alonso..... and perhaps Flavio too? Data on weight distribution would be critical in adapting to Bridgestones. [Hasn't Flav been untypically quiet in the last few days?]
It's credible that only a few knew of the Coughlan/Stepney link. However Alonso and Pedro were clearly happy to use any advantage - even over their new team-mate. How could Alonso ever claim a championship tainted by his advantages from stolen data.
Would endangering their employer's business by this behaviour count at "gross misconduct?" If I was Ron, there'd be two driver vacancies at McLaren on Monday.
Would not a fairer penalty have been a 25 point deduction from both driver's - and therefore constructor's tally? It would have settled things now and given us an honest fight up to the end of the season.
|
To answer jbif in Vol 13 and also some of the above points, jbif said "So it seems they can make a decision based on conjecture, not any concrete evidence of advantage having been actually gained or even attempted to be gained."
That is like saying that is you will not be convicted of stealing money as long as you dont spend it.
Alonso simply should not be driving this weekend and the more I think about it McLaren should be thrown out, not for two years as has been suggested, just for 2007.
|
|
Having read the FIA statment at www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348 I think that de la rosa, coughlin and olonso should all be fired for gross misconduct with immediate effect.
|
|
so if both teams were using ferrari technology and know how then we must assume that the mclaren drivers are better then? just a thought
|
"If I was Ron, there'd be two driver vacancies at McLaren on Monday"
No today... no constructor points anyway and it's not so much Alonso has dropped them in it but he was part of it. He might not have been banned but to me the team have to act. Might even save some face.
|
Reading the FIA decision in detail, I conclude that this is outrageous, they simply should not be racing anymore this season!!!!!!!!!
While one may have some sympathy with Hamilton it is important to remeber that he worked as a test driver alongside De la Rosa long before Alonso moved from Renault can he really have been unaware of the comminications regarding Ferrari data?
|
I see from ITV.F1.com that it was Ron himself that handed those e-mails to the FIA - brave move!
|
brave move!
He only became aware because the FIA has asked the drivers to submit evidence, reckon by then he was thinking fair cop and looking to bargain.
|
Cheddar, I was under the impression at the start of the previous thread that you weere very knowledgeable about F1 affairs from some insider info. The more I read your replies, I am convinced that I would feel sorry for any defendant who had you on a jury in their trial.
I won't bother trying to answer your replies point by point as Alter Ego has tried that and failed. But taking your last comment above:
Cheddar said "He only became aware because the FIA has asked the drivers to submit evidence, reckon by then he was thinking fair cop and looking to bargain."
Just look at the ITV web itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40673 and i hope you will see and agree that you are wrong about that claim about Ron Dennis. It actually answeers the question I raised in the previous thread as to who might have leaked the existence of the emails to the FIA.
PARTIAL QUOTE BEGINS
McLaren boss Ron Dennis has revealed that he was the source of the new evidence that prompted the FIA to revisit the spying case.
"Dennis said at Spa on Friday that he approached the FIA as soon as he became aware of the existence of the emails.
?Once I became aware that new evidence might exist which I did on the morning of the Hungarian GP (5 August), I immediately phoned the FIA to keep them informed,? he said.
PARTIAL QUOTE ENDS
|
>>Cheddar, I was under the impression at the start of the previous thread that you were very knowledgeable about F1 affairs from some insider info.>>
I reckon I am fairly knowledageable about F1 though I have no insider info at this stage, I was closer to F1 a few years ago via business dealings which incidentally did not directly involve either Mclaren or Ferrari.
Also I used to live a mile or two from the McLaren HQ, I have met many of the characters and my wife knows Lisa Dennis. Though that does not change the facts in this case, and afterall Ron does not need my support.
>>The more I read your replies, I am convinced that I would feel sorry for any defendant who had you on a jury in their trial.>>
Just look at the evidence jbif.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348
|
Reading the FIA decision in detail I conclude that this is outrageous they simply should not be racing anymore this season!!!!!!!!!
Is there no end to your pantomime villan outrage? take care my crusty round yellow friend, you may curdle!
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
>> Is there no end to >>
As I say just look at the evidence, can you honestly say that Alonso should be allowed to drive at Spa this weekend?
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348
|
As I say just look at the evidence can you honestly say that Alonso should be allowed to drive at Spa this weekend? www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348
If we ignore the dossier, I reckon that if you captured all email, telephone and SMS traffic in and out of any F1 team you would be able to selectively produce similar evidence.
Bearing in mind they published the BEST evidence they had, its a tad thin.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
Has anyone thought about this conspiracy theory.
After the Hungarian GP problems with Alonso, and having found out about the existence of the emails, did someone think "If McLaren tell the FIA about the emails between the Spaniards Alonso and Pedro, it may result in the two drivers being banned thereby saving McLaren the hassle of firing them and paying any compensation". But then did Mosele put a spanner in the plan by offering the amnesty to the drivers by writing an unnecessary letter - unnecessary because McLaren had already told the FIA about the emails?
|
>>unnecessary because McLaren had already told the FIA about the emails?>>
McLaren told the FIA about the e-mails after the FIA contacted the drivers. Aside from Alonso who could pbably get another drive tomorrow. De la Rosa must have been worried about his job, if you were he would you ignore your boiss and go straight to the FIA or would you say "look boss this is what I have found, do you want to show the team in a good light and contact the FIA before I do".
|
"McLaren told the FIA about the e-mails after the FIA contacted the drivers"
?????? So you maintain what you said in an earlier post despite the the itv-f1 and autosport news claiming that Ron was the source of the emails "leak".
Or is it that perhaps I am the one who is as thick as that team principal whom Moseley described as "perhaps not the sharpest knife in the block"?
|
"McLaren told the FIA about the e-mails after the FIA contacted the drivers" ?????? So you maintain what you said in an earlier post despite the the itv-f1 and autosport news claiming that Ron was the source of the emails "leak".
itv-f1 mention e-mails, Autosport dont.
From what I have read / heard during this saga I dont beleive that Ron new of the e-mails as early as the 5th August, it was other evidence me brought to light then, subsequently the FIA must have been tipped off that e-mails may exist though I dont believe it was on the basis of info from Ron on 5th Aug because they did not write to the drivers until the first week in Sept.
|
It would appear that Alonso tried to blackmail Ron Dennis with the existence of these e-mails during a "meeting" on race morning in Hungary. Not difficult to figure what he wanted.....
Once he was aware of them; Ron took them to his arch-enemy Mosley - that would have been an seismic event worth witnessing. "Here you are Max - your dreams have come true...."
No wonder Ron said that it had been an awful weekend after the race.... We only saw the half of it.
So; Alonso for Renault or Toymota next year? Ferrari deserve the crooked, spoilt whinger; but Jean Todt has said that he'll never drive for them.
|
In various papers it suggests Alonso threatened Ron Dennis about emails and going to the FIA if we did not get preferential treatment. If true then he (Alonso) is insecure in his driving. Papers then go on to say Dennis did not accept black-mail and called the FIA and Alonso's bluff. And its cost the team (and therefore him) £50 and close to expulsion.
This is so sad for F1 if true...
|
In various papers it suggests Alonso threatened Ron Dennis about emails and going to the FIA if we did not get preferential treatment. If true then he (Alonso) is insecure in his driving.
One thing is patently clear here. Alonso is not the driver that I thought him to be. Fast yes. Appears to be utterly lacking in backbone, fortitude or any form of inner strength cunning or guile. Stupid too.
I would sack him and pedro today. Run the other car with any driver who had a superlicense.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
"As I say just look at the evidence, can you honestly say that Alonso should be allowed to drive at Spa this weekend?"
I don't think he should race again for McLaren. I hope that is what they are thinking. They are no longer in the constructors' champsionship so it's down to drivers. I'd rather Hamilton one - it's one of either Hamilton or Alonso. Don't fire him yet to save compensation just suspend for now.
|
there's been shenanigans like this going on for donkey's years..... i'm still not convinced Ron Dennis is guilty of a big conspiracy and is telling lies, he's nailed his integrity to the mast, which would be incredibly foolish if there's skeletons in the cupboard.
the other thing is Ferrari aren't saints either are they.
this will no doubt rumble on, although it would be nice to keep an 'open mind' until all the facts are out......which some posters seem unable to do
|
Yibble yibble yibble... Ferrari has made an ass of itself again and McLaren has been traduced. And like football fans, some people here want the strikers to suffer as well as the ref and the manager and the captain and the other team.
It's as bad as the pit lane at Monza.
AE, I don't include you.
|
|
After Alonso's other incidents this year I'd say he needs to move on for next year, if not earlier.
|
Yibble yibble yibble... Ferrari has made an ass of itself again and McLaren has been traduced.
>>
I just dont beleive it Lud!
Some of you guys as so blinkered, perhaps it is some kind of misguided patriotism on the basis that McLaren are British despite being part owned by a German motor co and a middle eastern business man.
How oh how oh HOW can you say Ferrari have made an ass of itself and McLaren have been traduced when the opposite is so plainly, clearly, evidently the case?
|
|
I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about F1, but who gets the proceeds of the fine?
|
I couldn't give a tinker's cuss about F1 but who gets the proceeds of the fine?
The FIA. Motor racing is no different to any other sport, fines imposed by the ruling body go to them.
--
|
|
Does someone need a new super yacht ?
|
HOW can you say Ferrari have made an ass of itself and McLaren have been traduced when the opposite is so plainly, clearly, evidently the case?
Perhaps I am guilty of overstatement. McLaren has made an ass of itself too I suppose.
What I simply can't agree with is this indignant attitude to what McLaren is supposed to have done, which is no more than anyone else in F1 would have done if they thought they could get away with it.
The latest allegations about Alonso trying to twist Ron Dennis's arm are really depressing, if true. Even the pay rates would hardly tempt a sensitive person to work in the F1 snake pit. Bummer!
|
|
|
|
|
Guess you were lucky not to have attended this particular meeting details as below from the BBC web site complete with a video of some rather ugly scenes.
tinyurl.com/3pq5b
"Police were forced to close the meeting within three minutes and made 54 arrests - including Sir Oswald's son Max."
|
|
Any one know where Ron gets his suits?
|
Any one know where Ron gets his suits?
Mr BuyRite in Woking.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
Same place as Jean Todt.
|
Jean Todt gets his at mothercare.
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
|
|
>>From what I have read / heard during this saga I dont beleive that Ron new of the e-mails as early as the 5th August, it was other evidence me brought to light then, subsequently the FIA must have been tipped off that e-mails may exist though I dont believe it was on the basis of info from Ron on 5th Aug because they did not write to the drivers until the first week in Sept. >>
Max Mosely's comments on ITV4 just now confirm that Ron did not mention e-mails to the FIA on 5th Aug, all he said to Max then was that Alonso had threatened to out incriminating info though denied the existence of any incriminating info.
Aside from the team's guilt Alonso's role is disgraceful, not only was he at the centre of the scandal and must have know how wrong it was to be using Ferrari data, it seems he then tried to blackmail the team.
When Max wrote to the drivers offering an amnesty he must have punched the air knowing he would get off scott free !
|
Good job you posted that cheesy, I didnt realise qualifying was being shown on ITV4!
------------------------------
< Ex RF, Ex TVM >
|
Cheddar is obviously very passionate about this, but I think we all have to concede that the evidence against the wrongdoers at www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348 is conclusive. (I count myself amongst the "we".)
Whether Ron is a wrongdoer is another matter, and we all need to be careful what we write about any despicable behaviour by a certain driver.
We also need to watch very carefully what happens to the 50 mil (minus what McClaren is owed: Autosport link).
The TV audience for tomorrow at Spa should be through the roof.
ITV1 repeats qualifying highlights at 16.15 today (ands 17.20).
HJ
|
Ron might or might not be honest - I think that's irrelevant for the team because the team as a single entity was not honest. Including Alonso. Hamilton it seems was honest but will have benefitted.
The sad bit is espionage has been part of F1 all along. Teams try to spy on each other's car all the time and engineers, designers, strategists, etc all move.
One can only hope this fine makes teams stop and think in future before trying to gain an advantage.
It will be interesting next season with McLaren in smaller garages in the pit lanes along with the other teams on 0 points from this season.
|
. The sad bit is espionage has been part of F1 all along.
What on earth is sad about it? How do people manage without it?
Part of the rather complicated game.
|
Nothing is sad about the intrigue and espionage.... that's part of F1. The sad bit is they get penalised for it and others do not!
I still think the evidence against Alosno is very bad but the FIA gave him a let it would seem. But should McMerc? No - sack him and take on a better equal driver to Hamilton in terms of honesty/hard work/discretion/etc. Drivers switch mid season in the past so do it now to try some. It is a good car probably without Ferrari IPR.
I might be wrong but I think Ron Dennis himself (not including all the team) and Hamilton are good honest people. But F1 a multi-billion pound industry so not good overall.
Shoot me down in flames ;-)
|
This sort of thing goes on all of the time:
As Patrick Head said photographing, analysing and discussing details of a rival's car that are already in the public domain is very different from having the full plans with which an exact replica of the car could be built.
Ron:
I would not question Ron's integrity, I have mixed in the same circles and as I said before my wife knows his wife, however it is plainly clear that he did not have his finger on the pulse of the team, something he has been so proud of. Nor did Martin W, lined up as the next CEO, aside from the damage done to date and the financial implications this must be worrying for all including MB.
Alonso:
He should not be allowed to compete in the remainder of the 2007 championship because it is clear that he is a guilty party. Aside from which I would not blame Ron sacking him on the basis of the 5th August conversation or MB / Vodafone / Santander for wanting to distance themselves from him. He will forever be tarnished by this matter.
De la Rosa:
Previously well respected, lost a lot of respect as will have some of the bit part players at McLaren.
Hamilton:
He has not been shown to have been aware of the Ferrari data and is, it seems, totally innocent however he is driving a car that has been built an developed by a team that is guilty as charged and in my opinion should not be allowed to compete in the remainder of the 2007 championship, at least in a McLaren, because he may have gained an unfair advantage which is in turn is unfair to all of the other drivers who are competing. Banning Hamilton from four races, the remainder of the season, would have allowed him to keep his wins which would be fair on him though it could be argued that if he then finished second or third behind Massa and Raik then that would be unfair on the 3rd or 4th placed driver etc.
2008:
I differ with the FIA on 2008, that is a new season, let them get on with it, the matter of inspecting the 2008 McLaren etc simply extends the saga. The right thing to have done would be to have removed McLaren totally from the 2007 championship and started 2008 totally afresh.
|
What proof does Cheddar have that Hamilton "may have gained an unfair advantage which is in turn is unfair to all of the other drivers who are competing"? Where does he get that from?
Banning Hamilton would put F1 back a year. The audience loss in the UK alone would be colossal. The one and only reason why most Brits are watching F1 this year is because a young, black British rookie driver might win the championship.
I'm more sympathetic to banning Alonso, but, of course, he is the man who has brought F1 to the Spanish and Santander is a Spanish bank. So don't expect that to happen because banning him would deprive F1 of maybe 10,000,000 Spanish fans who only want to see Alonso win.
HJ
|
I have followed this thread with interest and would like to add my two pennyworth.
First of all it seems that Cheddar has stuck to his guns and been proved correct.(as proved and correct as these things ever are, anyway).
I have read the 14 page WMSC document and it is as good a record of what has happened as there is likely to be, with the same limitations as above.
The WMSC have more details, unpublished for the reasons they give in the document. We don't know what else they are withholding, for the same reasons.
To my mind there is a big difference between information gained by observation, photographs etc when the cars are "in the public domain" and information gained by fraudulently obtaining documentation from another team in the manner it was done.
Members of the Mclaren TEAM (caps for emphasis) were quite willing to use the information to their advantage.
There is no proof that Mclaren didn't use the documentation to improve their cars right from the start of the season.
Ron Dennis may or may not have known what was happening in the team.
The implication, in my opinion, is that the Mclaren team has been "cheating" from day one of the season.
Whether Lewis was as directly involved, as Alonso and De La Rosa will, again, never be proved or disproved.
Whether Lewis's car benefited or not will never be proved or disproved, either.
It throws the whole TEAM into disrepute, Lewis and Ron included, in my opinion.
If Lewis wins the championship there will always be the taint of cheating over the result.
Ferrari always seem to be the bad boys when anything untoward crops up like this. If Williams, for example, had been top dogs and their data had been stolen should it have been treated differently?
(Libellous contention removed.)
It would be interesting to take samples of the gas used in ALL the Mclaren tyres used during the race and compare it to the gas used in the Ferraris, if it is identical then it would prove once and for all that Ferrari data/intellectual rights had been used by Mclaren.
|
Banning Hamilton would put F1 back a year. The audience loss in the UK alone would be colossal. I'm more sympathetic to banning Alonso --- but banning him would deprive F1 of maybe 10 000 000 Spanish fans
Expediency rules eh!
I am as keen on F1 as the next man - but it is a circus rather than a sport.
In the past when teams have found to taken advantage of unfair practices - illegal fuel, overweight cars etc, both the driver and team have lost points even though the drivers were clearly innocent. As Mclaren in this latest saga have been found guilty of unfair practice, it is nonsensical that the drivers have kept their points. The sole reason is that the TV audience would have been decimated.
That said I personally think the whole 'intellectual rights' situation is farcical.
Does anyone think that when Adrian Newey went from Mclaren to Red Bull he went empty handed, with a 'brain reset'? Not even the slightest chance of his former employer's operating procedures and technical data being used to benefit his new employer?
What if Mclaren had employed Nigel Stepney or even Ross Brawn(both looking for jobs) would that have made it OK for Mclaren to use the same gas in their tyres etc etc?
|
Make that underweight cars!!
On the subject of weight, I seem to recall the before drivers were weighed at the end of the race, the teams declared the weight of their drivers - and it wasn't checked. Ferrari 'discovered' that Michael S had put on some 30lbs.
|
Cardew's point about what is in people's heads is exactly the point made by Eddie Jordan on Thursday night.
Anyway, now time to watch the race.
HJ
|
|
What annoys me is the hypocrisy of the whole matter.Designers,engineers and mechanics have swapped teams over the decades.They have often taken info with them, not only in their heads but also on paper.No action was taken against Toyota for their moles at ferrari.Ten years ago,an Italian engineer at Mclaren was requested to leave after being caught accessing information that was not relevant to his area of work.No prizes for guessing which other team he was linked to.The matter was kept quiet.Amongst many other things does not evesdropping on Mclarens pit radios by Ferrari also enter the realms of unsporting conduct.
|
And after that the Belgian GP was one of the most tedious, boring races in history. Any new viewers F1 may have got by the espionage publicity will wonder what all the fuss was about and will probably never watch F1 again.
HJ
|
McLaren have been unlucky. What they are accused of has gone on for yonks, but everyone turned a blind eye. All of a sudden the regulatory authorities have decided to make an example of someone and it just so happens they have chosen McLaren. A stern warning to the F1 industry in general would have been sufficient.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>What proof does Cheddar have that Hamilton "may have gained an unfair advantage which is in turn is unfair to all of the other drivers who are competing"? Where does he get that from?>>
Isnt it clear?
The team he drives for have been found guilty of cheating so his car has possibly benefited from that cheating thus he has possibley had a fatser car due to that cheating which has given him an unfair advantage over other drivers, albeit unknowingly.
|
I find it hard to get excited.
Races are processions.
There is minimal passing.
It's all bout ratings.
If peopel are stoopid enuf to believe it's racing, let them.
Fwiw I beileve if we knew the full story of all racing, we'd say it was all "fixed" but WDIK.
All I do know is it's BORING> so I watch the start = the whole race.
After all, 1,2,3,4 = 1,2,3,4
Sooner watch snails racing .. at least you don't know at the start who will win.
madf
|
"All I do know is it's BORING"
MotoGP from Estoril was (as usual) much more exciting. Even the commentary is witty!
|
McLaren have been unlucky. ..........>> L\'escargot.
No L'escargot you have got it wrong the reasons are above, if you have read this thread and still believe what you have written then it is plainly ridiculaous.
Also re turbo11, it is not hypocrisy, there has been nothing like it before and analysing a details of a rival's car that are already in the public domain is very different from having the full plans with which an exact replica of the car could be built.
|
Also re turbo11 it is not hypocrisy there has been nothing like it before and analysing a details of a rival's car that are already in the public domain is very different from having the full plans with which an exact replica of the car could be built.
er yes it is hypocrisy.when other teams and personnel have previously gone unpunished,and yes stuff like this has gone on before.Having been at the sharp end of F1 since 1985 I am more qualified to make that statement than you or anyone else on this site.
s
|
Cardew's point about what is in people's heads is exactly the point made by Eddie Jordan on Thursday night.
Yes and is totally irrelevant, EJ knows better.
Having at the beginining of the season, a 780 page dosier enabling a competitor car to be built from scratch is totally different that an engineer or designer taking ideas with him from one season to the next.
|
|
er yes cheddar it is hypocrisy to punish a team when previous teams and personnel have gone unpunished.If you think nothing like this has happened before then your naive.I know the same stuff has gone on before, I have seen plenty of it in my 22 years of F1 and WRC.I have also helped on the uncovering of radio evesdropping.
|
Cheddar supplied a link to a very comprehensive report by Autosport, but nothing in that proves that Hamilton gained any kind of unfair advantage. It was fairly careful to state as much.
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62348
8.4 McLaren has made detailed submissions indicating that none of the information received enhanced the McLaren car. McLaren has suggested to the WMSC that unless "actual use" and a demonstrated and itemised performance advantage can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. to a criminal law standard of proof), the WMSC is not permitted at law to impose a penalty.
8.5 The WMSC rejects this suggestion. The WMSC has full jurisdiction to apply Article 151(c) and stresses that it is not necessary for it to demonstrate that any confidential Ferrari information was directly copied by McLaren or put to direct use in the McLaren car to justify a finding that Article 151(c) was breached and/or that a penalty is merited. Nor does the WMSC need to show that any information improperly held led to any specifically identified sporting advantage, or indeed any advantage at all. Rather, the WMSC is entitled to treat possession of another team's information as an offence meriting a penalty on its own if it so chooses.
8.6 The fact that in its 26 July Decision, based on more limited evidence, the Council had a different appreciation of the gravity of McLaren's breach does not lead to the creation of a legal test regarding the WMSC's burden of proof. The WMSC could have imposed a penalty with the 26 July Decision based on the evidence therein, but chose not to (based in part on McLaren's submissions that there had been no dissemination of Ferrari information beyond Mr Coughlan).
8.7 The WMSC has taken note of McLaren's position that an injustice would occur if a penalty were imposed without the FIA having accepted McLaren's offer to inspect the McLaren premises and designs for evidence of Ferrari technology having been copied. However, as noted above, neither the finding of a breach nor the imposition of a penalty require evidence of McLaren having directly incorporated Ferrari technology. Nonetheless, the WMSC have noted and taken account of the open and co-operative nature of this offer and taken this into account in reaching this Decision.
8.8 In light of the evidence now before it, the WMSC does not accept that the only actions of McLaren deserving censure were those of Coughlan. While this situation might have originated with the actions of a single rogue McLaren employee acting on his own and without McLaren's knowledge or consent, evidence is now available which, when taken in its full context, makes clear that:
- Coughlan had more information than previously appreciated and was receiving information in a systematic manner over a period of months;
- the information has been disseminated, at least to some degree (e.g. to Mr. de la Rosa and Mr. Alonso), within the McLaren team;
- the information being disseminated within the McLaren team included not only highly sensitive technical information but also secret information regarding Ferrari's sporting strategy;
- Mr de la Rosa, in the performance of his functions at McLaren, requested and received secret Ferrari information from a source which he knew to be illegitimate and expressly stated that the purpose of his request was to run tests in the simulator;
- the secret information in question was shared with Mr. Alonso;
- there was a clear intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing. If this was not in fact carried into effect it was only because there were technical reasons not to do so;
- Coughlan's role within McLaren (as now understood by the WMSC) put him in a position in which his knowledge of the secret Ferrari information would have influenced him in the performance of his duties.
8.9 It seems to the WMSC clear that Coughlan's actions were intended by him to give McLaren a sporting advantage. He fed information about Ferrari's stopping strategy, braking system, weight distribution and other matters to McLaren's test driver. Furthermore, in light of Coughlan's undoubted experience, he is likely to have known a great deal about how to confer an advantage and the roles of different personnel within the team. It seems most unlikely that he confined his activities to sharing Ferrari's information with Mr. de la Rosa. It also seems most unlikely that his own work was not influenced in some way by the knowledge regarding the Ferrari car that he is known to have possessed.
8.10 Furthermore, it seems entirely unlikely to the WMSC that any Formula One driver would bear the sole responsibility for handling or processing sensitive Ferrari information (e.g. on substances used to inflate tyres or weight distribution) or deciding how or whether such information would be used or tested. In light of his experience, Coughlan would have known this and if he intended to reveal this information to McLaren, he is unlikely to have done so only to Mr. de la Rosa .
8.11 The WMSC therefore finds that a number of McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, or knew or should have known that other McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, highly confidential Ferrari technical information. In addition, the WMSC finds that there was an intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing.
8.12 The evidence leads the WMSC to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained, though it may forever be impossible to quantify that advantage in concrete terms.
8.13 These factors lead the WMSC to an appreciation of the gravity of McLaren's breach which is materially different to the appreciation in the 26 July Decision. On this occasion the WMSC believes that a penalty is merited.
8.14 Having indicated to McLaren that a penalty was likely to be imposed, the WMSC heard submissions regarding the appropriateness of penalties from McLaren and from counsel for Mr. Hamilton. The WMSC has reached its decision having taken due account of those submissions.
HJ
|
but nothing in that proves that Hamilton gained any kind of unfair advantage. It was fairly careful to state as much.
To the contrary as you quote HJ, the report says:
8.12 The evidence leads the WMSC to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained though it may forever be impossible to quantify that advantage in concrete terms.
|
"forever be impossible to quantify"
Case not proven, then.
|
Case not proven then.
" to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained"
Case proven!
|
"Case proven!"
Depends on your standard of proof. It wouldn't stand up in court if the benefit can't be shown. In other words, they're guessing.
I accept (as does Ron Dennis) that they're the governing body and they make the rules, but to me, the whole thing stinks.
|
er yes cheddar it is hypocrisy to punish a team when previous teams and personnel have gone unpunished.If you think nothing like this has happened before then your naive.>>
No, this is much more comprehensive and also more clear cut than any other spying allegations.
the same stuff has gone on before I have seen plenty of it in my 22 years of F1 and WRC.>>
Better tell tell the FIA, or perhaps rather you should have done so.
After all even if you are right it does not in anyway justify what has happened.
|
SNIPQUOTE! for the person who ignored the message that popped up on his screen when he hit the 'quote original message' button and didn't bother quoting only the relevant text to which he's replying to
"In reply to Cheddar" (see, so much neater and tidier)
Thats my whole point,the FIA know what goes on.They only act when its politically expedient for them to act.This is as much about settling old scores as anything else. Having heard mosley's ranting interview today,he almost caught himself out when hinting that if Mclaren had been banned this year and next they might not be here ie. out of business. He would love that.Disgusting attitude fom the head of the FIA.The majority of guys up and down the pit lane think he is well out of order,and should of retired long ago.
|
Yes and is totally irrelevant, EJ knows better
Having at the beginining of the season, a 780 page dosier enabling a competitor car to be built from scratch...
No not really. I believe, from media reports, the document (or rather 2 CD's) was an operating manual - a sort of glorified version of what you get with a car.
How much this would enable one to be 'built from scratch' is highly debatable. Anyway, that 's a moot point really - if McLaren hadn't completed 99.9% of the basic development of their car by the time the operating manual allegedly came into Coughlan's hands, I doubt McLaren would have a car on the grid by now.
I certainly think Eddie Jordan does know better, his very salient observation was underlined by Martin Brundle over the race weekend. Quite frankly, to hold on to the view that 'secrets' don't flow (..and always have..) from team to team throughout the season is at least naive & even disingenuous. To further make a distinction between what is in people's head's & what is written down, even more so.
The fact is, the FIA & Ferrari have opened a Pandora's box. The precedent has been set that the FIA, at the behest of any team, must make a judgement on intelectual property or 'secrets', if not they will be seen to have acted impartially in this case. Furthermore, they will have to decide whether a person moving from one team to another has taken any 'knowledge' with them - for what's the difference between, say me, writing down 'Ferrari uses xenon in their tyres' & remembering the same fact & using that with my new employer? (I don't know if they do of course!)
The Italian (legal) authorities have yet to rule on this - in process, it's still unproven & untried in court - the FIA should have held off, in my view until that process was complete. I see very little but negatives coming from this.
|
>>Cheddar supplied a link to a very comprehensive report by Autosport, but nothing in that proves that Hamilton gained any kind of unfair advantage. It was fairly careful to state as much.>>
HJ,
www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62451
"I would have taken all the points away from Hamilton and Alonso on the grounds that there is a suspicion they had an advantage that they should not have had," said Mosley.
I agree 100% with Max on this.
F1 is a team sport, all have to suffer if only some in the team cheat, just like any other team sport.
|
I think that this is just smoke and mirrors to hide the true political machinations of Max and Bernie who are and always have been the power behind modern Formula 1.They have an agenda but we just don't know what it is. yet !
|
|
I suspect we'll find out that JT leaked the documents in desperation at their current losing streak in the expectation of this result. ;)
|
uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/070916/2/vba3.html
Apparently today's victory dedicated to an employee of a shop in South England who phoned Ferrari and told them that someone was wanting to photocopy technical information relating to their cars!
Multi million pound espionage and they try and photocopy it all in their local corner shop! You couldn't make it up!
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
The Photoshop's part in the Drama/Farce was mentioned earlier on (about 12 Volumes ago !) no doubt this will be turned into a film with the floppy haired one in a few years !
"Four Racing Teams and a Photostat Machine" or something like that
|
The race was quite boring, with most of the best action down in the pack not much covered. After the first couple of corners of course where Alonso showed, if not class, at least serious grit.
I enjoyed Raikkonen's doughnut. Ferrari did show a bit of class.
It seems Max Mosley and Ron Dennis have said pax, for the time being. Mosley withdrew up to a point his aspersion on Dennis's honesty. Presumably the money will be looked after all right.
I look forward to a furious, sharp-toothed McLaren operating out of a toilet behind the pits next year and clawing its way rapidly back to the front.
|
"I look forward to a furious, sharp-toothed McLaren operating out of a toilet behind the pits next year and clawing its way rapidly back to the front."
Me too. I hope they clean up and that Alonso gets to be petulant somewhere else, further down the grid.
|
Sorry bout that PU, no point in telling you my other news that Mansell is retiring from F1 ? :)
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
If I was to sit an exam on this its the only bit I'd actually remember - oh and one of RF's remarks further up !
|
>>Multi million pound espionage and they try and photocopy it all in their local corner shop! You couldn't make it up!
It's the photoshop fiasco that gives a sense of perspective to the whole affair. Had this been "McLaren" using the dodgy dossier; then it's likely that only a top-security copier deep in the heart of the engineering department would have been used.
The inference of the evidence published so far is that certain low-level employees were treating this data more like "mucky postcards" than gold dust. "'Ere; avva squint at this..."
Yes; there was interest in Ferrari's set-up and the trackside info would have been valuable; but the car itself would have been finalized months earlier and was a very different concept, so only peripheral design matters could have been influenced.
The penalty for this amateurish behaviour should have been appropriate and proportional. As the possibility of advantage existed; then that should have been directly addressed. A simple deduction of points to the maximum possible value of those that may have been gained.
25 off each driver and 50 off the team would not have ruined the champoinship; it would have saved it by putting all four drivers back in the hunt. Whichever McLaren driver now wins it doesn't matter - they've won by cheating and it's thus worthless. Only if they'd won it after paying the price of their illicit advantage, would it have been valid.
The FIA and Nigel Stepney have ruined a great year - I haven't missed watching a televised race "live" since Caeser's Palace in 1980 - but I won't be bothering to get up at 0300 for the next two.
|
the car itself would have been finalized months earlier and was a very different concept
Maybe why drivers not thrown out... the team as a whole was wrong and Ron Dennis seems to be accepting it. Even thought costing them millions .
25 off each driver and 50 off the team would not have ruined the champoinship
Maybe McLaren gave the constructor's championship up for the sake for the drivers. They are not likely to appeal. Taking that many points off would have risked Ferrari winning the driver's championship. For the sponsors I bet that would have been too much. Sponsors are there for the drivers' effect, e.g. that Spanish "Abbey" bank will be why Alonso is not fired... Millions in Spain are watching F1 because of him. Likewise lots new to F1 because of Hamilton being (a) young, (b) coloured, and (c) British. (c) maybe an affect but (a) and (b) more likely. He's also very talented and I personally want him to win ;-)
Give it a few weeks and this will blow over for most of the world and the F1 season will have a winner driver. Most (not those on here mind) will know and care little about a constructor championship. There is a black English driver and Spanish driver at McLaren ;-) And those almost winners from Ferrari.
The FIA and Nigel Stepney have ruined a great year
And McLaren/Ferrari have ruined this great year too.
|
I'd read he sent his wife to photocopy the 780 pages of Ferrari documents in the home town of McLaren. It is either not true at all or he was "thick". If you did want to do this sort of copying you'd buy a copier on your salary, even a home scanner-copier sort of thing.
But one the one hand I'd say he got all info on CD or memory card... but now remember months ago hearing about the copier shop blowing the whistle!
And he was one of the main designers at Mc-Merc. I have a few HB, B2 and B4 pencils and can get an H2 *and* H4 tomorrow - give me a job ;-)
|
I reckon that for 500m you'd get a decent copier and a service contract !
|
PU
If you went for the most expensive printer/scanner at PCWorld you'd have change from £300. Might be slower than a proper copier but you'd save the team £50m overall.
|
"I reckon that for 500m you'd get a decent copier and a service contract ! "
For 500m (Euros or Pounds) you could get a new life.
|
No doubt this has been discussed further up as well, but how much of the information gained was "technical" and how much was "tactical".
What I am saying is that it was technical, so basically the cars were the same, then Lewis has still proved himself the best so far. (Many one make car series are raced in identical cars).
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
|
|
"54 arrests - including Sir Oswald's son Max."
Hope they set bail at £50m...
|
>>What I am saying is that it was technical, so basically the cars were the same, then Lewis has still proved himself the best so far. (Many one make car series are raced in identical cars).>>
There is no suggestion that the cars are the same, perhaps the Mclaren utilises some Ferrari ideas directly perhaps not.
The point is that Ferrari and McLaren will have each spent many millions on technical development, lets say for arguments sake 50 mio each, the issue is that McLaren have had access to Ferrari's data as well as there own so have benefited from 100 mio in tech development so their drivers have had an unfair advantage.
Lewis is innocent however F1 is a team sport and all have to suffer even if only some in the team cheat just like in any other team sport.
|
"I agree 100% with Max on this."
"Max", eh? What, your pal, is he?
Cheddar, this whole thing has gone way past your personal obsession.
It wasn't a court of law. It came to a verdict no court of law ever should have on the lack of concrete evidence. And, had it been a proper court, the verdict and/or the punishment could have been appealed.
Ron Dennis has (wisely and expediently) accepted its verdict.
To try to make it worse for Ron Dennis seems to me to be witch hunting in the extreme.
HJ
|
If F1 was half as much about racing and sport as it is apparently about backstabbing, politics and money, it wouldn't be haemorrhaging fans at the rate it is.
The patriot in me is following Lewis's development with interest, but as far as I'm concerned, they all deserve each other. This stopped being a sport a long time ago.
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
!* "Max", eh? What, your pal, is he? Cheddar, this whole thing has gone way past your personal obsession. *
It was this type of familiarity that misled me initially in the previous volume to believe that Cheddar had inside connection to F1.
In the WMSC ruling quoted by Honestjohn further up this thread, it is clear that some aspects of their decision are based on conjecture, because they use the words "it seems" and not "it is evident":
PARTIAL QUOTEs:
8.9 It seems to the WMSC etc. etc.
8.10 Furthermore, it seems entirely unlikely to the WMSC etc. etc.
Cheddar has a personal viewpoint on this matter which seems to match that of Ferrari and he is entitled to hold those views. I think the facts lead me to a different conclusion but then I am used to thinking along the lines of the British Justice System rather than the FIA procedures. The latest interview with Jean Todt on Autosport.com ( www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62495 ) seems to imply that Ferrari are not going to allow McLaren the closure that Ron Dennis wanted. It seems Ferrari will not drop their legal cases in Italy and England, and so McLaren may be pushed in to an Appeal before the WMSC court where it will be lawyers only who will look at the case (according to Jean Todt). www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62493
QUOTE
Q. If McLaren do make an appeal, would you expect the World Council to re-assess the decision to allow them to keep their Drivers' points?
JT: You have been talking... I started to say that they have had a very soft penalty considering the whole matter. In a tribunal appeal, you have only lawyers. If you take the legal case? but I cannot deduct what will be the result of the appeal. If there will be an appeal.
END QUOTE
|
|
|
|
"Max" eh? What your pal is he?>>
No HJ, it is easier to type Max or Ron than Moseley or Dennis.
{Moderators comment. Max is also easier to spell than Mosley as well ;o) } - DD
It wasn't a court of law. It came to a verdict no court of law ever should have on the lack of concrete evidence. And had it been a proper court the verdict and/or the punishment could have been appealed.>>
1/ There is concrete evidence.
2/ It is the council that has jurisdiction over the sport, something that all participants sign up to.
3/ It can be appealed, McLaren have yet to confirm that they wont do so.
Ron Dennis has (wisely and expediently) accepted its verdict.>>
See 3/ above.
To try to make it worse for Ron Dennis seems to me to be witch hunting in the extreme.>>
It is not a matter of making it worse for Ron or anyone, it is a matter of what is fair and reasonable and my opinion is that what has happened is unfair on every other team and driver in the championship and the fans thereof. Hence while Lewis is innocent as an individual it is a team sport and I dont think it is right that he should be allowed to win the championship when there is evidence to suggest that he may have had an unfair advantage. On the otherhand stripping him of his wins to date would be witch hunting.
|
|
|
Cheddar,
You state "Yes and is totally irrelevant, EJ knows better."
Why is it TOTALLY irrelevant?
Given that the offence is gaining knowledge of another teams 'secrets', isn't it just a teeny weeny bit relevant when those secrets are taken by an employee - Adrian Newey for example - to another team?
The issue here is the severity of the offence and the scale of the punishment.
You quote this later:
"8.12 The evidence leads the WMSC to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained though it may forever be impossible to quantify that advantage in concrete terms."
Would you not think there is some contadiction between the quotes above? i.e. 'Totally irrelevant' and 'some degree etc'
Hanging Judge Jeffreys or the Taliban would appear to be your role models.
|
You state "Yes and is totally irrelevant EJ knows better." Why is it TOTALLY irrelevant?
Firstly Cardew, an apology, "totally irrelevant" was meant for Eddie Jordan's comments, not yours.
However I answered that when I said - having at the beginining of the season, a 780 page dosier enabling a competitors car to be built from scratch is totally different that an engineer or designer taking ideas with him from one season to the next.
Therfore 'Totally irrelevant' and 'some degree etc' are different and unrelated points.
|
! * at the beginining of the season, a 780 page dosier enabling *
Cheddar - just one or two questions.
I think you have said a number of times that you believe a 780 page dossier of was in the hands of a McLaren employee at the beginning of the season. Can you say where you get that belief/information/fact from, and what do you mean by the "beginning" ?
|
From today's Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&...l
QUOTE
After the race it emerged that Alonso deepened divisions at his besieged team by offering the mechanics working on his car a bonus of ?1,000 (£700) a race to help beat Hamilton to the world title. Though McLaren put a stop to the scheme there is little they can do to heal the rift between the drivers.
QUOTE ENDS
|
Cheddar - just one or two questions. I think you have said a number of times that you believe a 780 page dossier of was in the hands of a McLaren employee at the beginning of the season. Can you say where you get that belief/information/fact from and what do you mean by the "beginning" ?
The first race of the season was Australia in mid March.
Coughlan is quoted as saying ""Stepney contacted me for the first time in five years on March 1st 2007. He subsequently telephoned me and informed me that he was very unhappy with the direction his career was taking at Ferrari and Mr Almondo's promotion above him. But he did not pass any technical information about Ferrari to me until mid-March 2007."
The WMSC ruling states" "On 21 March 2007 at 09.57 Mr. de la Rosa wrote to Coughlan in the following terms: 'Hi Mike, do you know the Red Car's Weight Distribution? It would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator. Thanks in advance, Pedro.' "
|
OK Cheddar since you said:
" having at the beginining of the season, a 780 page dosier enabling a competitors car to be built from scratch "
Whereas Coughlan has said www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62303
"The two met at Barcelona Airport on April 28th 2007, and went to a restaurant at the city's marina.
"During the course of conversation, we discussed a feature of how Ferrari's rear brake disc works. This discussion is typical of the types of conversations that often take place between motor racing engineers in relation to non-critical aspects of car design.
"Stepney made a sketch to show how the brake disc worked. My view was that his drawing incorrectly characterised how this feature looked based on photographs taken at races, but I did not comment on this.
"After having lunch with Stepney I asked him not to send to me anything further.
"I then asked Stepney to drive me to the Airport. When I got into his car, he passed me a bundle of documents which he asked me to look at.
So according to Cheddar, McLaren rebuilt their car from scratch sometime after 28 April 2007.
P.S.
Incidentally in a reply above you said " itv-f1 mention e-mails, Autosport dont. "
The same story as at ITV was carried by Autosport www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62376
|
|
|
|
"Hope they set bail at £50m..."
£50m at 1962 money, that would bring tears to your eyes! Can you spot Max amidst the melee?
tinyurl.com/3pq5b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
