McLaren's HQ Investigated / Renault to answer spying charge

[Sting]

Wow, what a load of bull****, for sure.

McLaren have Ferrari data = McLaren punished
Renault have McLaren data = McLaren lose out again.

Evidence points to an FIA vendetta against McLaren. This is an absolute disgrace, or am I missing something?

 

[Greycap]

Evidence points to an FIA vendetta against McLaren. This is an absolute disgrace, or am I missing something?

You're missing the point Hun200kmh made earlier: McLaren got away with it at the first trial.

The World Motor Sport Council found them to be in breach the International Sporting Code for possessing confidential Ferrari information. They imposed no penalty because of insufficient evidence that this affected the championship.

After that there was a new trial after the surfacing of new evidence.Without that evidence, there would have been no penalties. Bad for McLaren though, the evidence came from inside the team.

The emails between the McLaren drivers proved that the British-based team used information leaked from title rivals Ferrari. The FIA statement also said "The emails show unequivocally that both Mr Alonso and Mr de la Rosa received confidential Ferrari information via Mike Coughlan. Both drivers knew that this information was confidential Ferrari information and that both knew that the information was being received by Coughlan from Nigel Stepney".

At an Extraordinary General Meeting of the World Motorsport Council, Renault were found to be guilty of breaching Article 151c of the International Sporting Code. They were not punished.

Isn't this decision directly in line with the initial McLaren decision?

Most of the information from Wikipedia.

 

[Leonidae]

No. McLaren is evil and has to be punished accordingly.

 

[Blake]

The emails between the McLaren drivers proved that the British-based team used information leaked from title rivals Ferrari. The FIA statement also said "The emails show unequivocally that both Mr Alonso and Mr de la Rosa received confidential Ferrari information via Mike Coughlan. Both drivers knew that this information was confidential Ferrari information and that both knew that the information was being received by Coughlan from Nigel Stepney".

And Renault admitted that 18 of their employees had viewed the McLaren data on as many as 11 different computers… It’s just mind-boggling that their has been no punishment.

There appears to be more evidence against Renault than there was against McLaren at their first hearing, so I don’t get how they can’t be punished.

Damn inconsistent rulings…

 

[Sureboss]

Whether or not you believe this is on the same level of McLarens use, the fact they received no penalty despite being found guilty, makes no sense whatsoever.

The inconsistency by the FIA is damaging the sport as much as the data being 'shared'.

 

[Scaff]

The emails between the McLaren drivers proved that the British-based team used information leaked from title rivals Ferrari.

Funny that neither of the FIA transcripts actually says that at all, in fact the transcripts specifically state that the FIA acknowledge that they can not prove that McLaren used the data, just that they believe it may have been used.

What can be shown in both cases is that the team in question had confidential data from a competitor that was viewed and discussed by various members of the team. In neither case has it been demonstrated, nor can it be proved that the data was actually used.

I acknowledge that you are quoting Wiki here, but the actual WMSC transcripts from the hearing directly contradict the quote above, and I know which I'm going to believe. Additionally the result of the Renault hearing is closer to the second McLaren hearing, not the first. The first McLaren hearing showed that a member (as in single person) had received and viewed the data, it was only the second hearing that investigated and discussed wider dissemination of the information. As the Renault situation involves a significant number of team members viewing and discussing the information its closer in scope to the second McLaren hearing.

And Renault admitted that 18 of their employees had viewed the McLaren data on as many as 11 different computers… It’s just mind-boggling that their has been no punishment.

Not quite right, McLaren put those incorrect numbers out in a press release and have since had to correct them.
Source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64290

It was apparently 18 statements given to the FIA by 13 Renault team members who viewed the data, and 11 discs loaded onto one computer. That computer was however believed to be fully networked, and if that's the case it was potentially distributed to a huge number of people.

Scaff

 

[Hun200kmh]

...

I await the full transcript with interest.


Scaff

It's already available, in the FIA site, but I found it easier to read in the F1-live.com site (larger fonts )

 

[Blake]

Not quite right, McLaren put those incorrect numbers out in a press release and have since had to correct them.

Sorry, was using an older article as my source.

 

[m7ammed]

But didn't the emails show intent of McMerc drivers willing to test the Ferrari data on the McMerc data? which shows there intention of using the data or actually trying to benefit from it which wasn't proved in the first hearing in the McMerc case?

I think if a similar situation was found with the Renault case they would be punished in the same way McMerc were.

 

[Scaff]

But didn't the emails show intent of McMerc drivers willing to test the Ferrari data on the McMerc data? which shows there intention of using the data or actually trying to benefit from it which wasn't proved in the first hearing in the McMerc case?

I think if a similar situation was found with the Renault case they would be punished in the same way McMerc were.

Intent does not prove anything (as the post I was replying to claimed was the case), one could make exactly the same conclusion on the fact that Renault loaded the data onto its networked computer and at least 13 people viewed it and discussed it (by Renault's own admission in the witness statement).

Neither of these prove use, as such the situations are almost identical; confidential data was stored, distributed, viewed and discussed by a number of members of both teams, however actual use can't be proven in either case. Despite all these similarities and that both parties were found guilty of exactly the same sporting code violation, only one of them received the single biggest fine in motor-sport history (and the other received no penalty at all)!!!


Scaff

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

With all due respect Scaff, I'm sure you would also admit that unless you are directly involved in both investigations, and have seen first hand ALL the evidence in both cases, coming to the conclusion that they are identical cases with identical circumstances is merely speculation.

I do appreciate the fact that you do an amazing job researching much of the FIA "reported" findings, but even you must admit not everything is made public.

Frankly, while it is easy to stand on the sidelines and accuse various companies, organizations, and individuals of doing things we may feel are unjustified, and perhaps in many cases we may be right, but at the same time, unless we are directly involved and with out any doubt know every single detail in a case, and not just what we read in articles and officially reported findings, then we are still only speculating, and we may very well not know all the details or maybe the details we thought were true were in fact false.

Given that, our opinions on those decisions are to a certain extent always going to be based on a great deal of speculation, and possibly based on unkown and untrue facts.

Now I have nothing against speculating, sharing opinions, and especially using facts to support our speculation and opinions, which you do very well and I for one appreciate that. However, that still doesn’t mean you, I or anyone else not directly involved and privy to all the actual details and evidence actually really do know all the facts surrounding these cases, and thus we can not say for sure that they are identical, and deserve equal punishment.

 

[Roo]

McLaren must wait for 2008 car clearance

McLaren will have to wait until four weeks before the start of next season to find out whether or not their car has been approved for use by the FIA.

A meeting of the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) in Monaco today was due to discuss whether or not any Ferrari intellectual property had been used on McLaren's 2008 challenger.

This came after a detailed examination recently of the designs for the MP4-23 at McLaren's Woking headquarters by FIA-appointed officials.

However, the WMSC felt that it would be better if both McLaren and Ferrari had some input into the findings of the report, so a new meeting has been pencilled in for February 14, 2008.

A statement issued by the FIA said: "In its decision of 13 September 2007, the WMSC instructed the FIA Technical Department to conduct an investigation of the preparatory work by McLaren on its 2008 car to determine whether that car incorporates any confidential Ferrari information.

"This investigation has been concluded and a detailed report submitted to the WMSC. The WMSC considers that McLaren, Ferrari and the other competitors in the FIA Formula One World Championship should be afforded the opportunity to make considered representations on the report at an extraordinary general meeting of the WMSC to be held on Thursday 14 February 2008 in Paris."

The delay in reaching a verdict comes after McLaren F1 Martin Whitmarsh CEO told Autosport that he hoped the matter could be dealt with swiftly so the team could focus on their 2008 campaign.

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64311

 

[Scaff]

However, that still doesn’t mean you, I or anyone else not directly involved and privy to all the actual details and evidence actually really do know all the facts surrounding these cases, and thus we can not say for sure that they are identical, and deserve equal punishment.

Please don't get me wrong I am not saying that every aspect of the cases are identical in every detail. However I find it incredible that given the amazingly similar nature of both cases and that both parties were found guilty of the exact same sporting code violation such a huge difference in the punishments exists.

I'm was not expecting Renault to receive the exact same punishment as McLaren, but to be found guilty and have nothing happen at all just staggers me.


Regards

Scaff

 

[mipuumal]

Please don't get me wrong I am not saying that every aspect of the cases are identical in every detail. However I find it incredible that given the amazingly similar nature of both cases and that both parties were found guilty of the exact same sporting code violation such a huge difference in the punishments exists.

I'm was not expecting Renault to receive the exact same punishment as McLaren, but to be found guilty and have nothing happen at all just staggers me.


Regards

Scaff

As it has been pointed out they did get the exact same punishment, McLaren were let off the hook initially aswell.

It was only after Alonso & co. revealed their emails and such in the second hearing that they got the fine and penalty.

Let's hope that Renault used IRC instead.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Please don't get me wrong I am not saying that every aspect of the cases are identical in every detail. However I find it incredible that given the amazingly similar nature of both cases and that both parties were found guilty of the exact same sporting code violation such a huge difference in the punishments exists.

But do we really know that both cases are even amazingly similar in nature? Again, it sounds like you are assuming you know all the specific details about both cases, which again, I'm sure you can agree that it is extremely unlikely that we do.

I'm sure you can also agree that just because two infractions may be based largely on the same sporting code violation, that there can still be significant differences between the cases that would certainly justify different outcomes, right?

Of course, for anyone to determine this, they again would have to be privy to all the details about both cases... which unfortunately, although understandably, I doubt any of us will ever know.

 

[<_Spike_>]

Though surely, breaching the regulations, regardless of how much deserves some form of penalty? If it was just a case of "bringing the sport into disrepute", I could understand them getting away with nothing...but breaching regulations ought to at least have a slap on the wrist and some handing over of a fine.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I'm was not expecting Renault to receive the exact same punishment as McLaren, but to be found guilty and have nothing happen at all just staggers me.

Though surely, breaching the regulations, regardless of how much deserves some form of penalty? If it was just a case of "bringing the sport into disrepute", I could understand them getting away with nothing...but breaching regulations ought to at least have a slap on the wrist and some handing over of a fine.

"Ferrari notes that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has been found guilty by the FIA World Council," read a team statement. "It therefore finds it incomprehensible that violating the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not have, as a logical and inevitable consequence, the application of a sanction."

"Today's decision legitimises dishonest behaviour in Formula One and sets a very serious precedent."

You all agree, then ...




PS - the last quote was taken from:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article2146284.ece

 

[Scaff]

As it has been pointed out they did get the exact same punishment, McLaren were let off the hook initially aswell.

It was only after Alonso & co. revealed their emails and such in the second hearing that they got the fine and penalty.

Let's hope that Renault used IRC instead.

And I've also already posted my thoughts on that position as well

Additionally the result of the Renault hearing is closer to the second McLaren hearing, not the first. The first McLaren hearing showed that a member (as in single person) had received and viewed the data, it was only the second hearing that investigated and discussed wider dissemination of the information. As the Renault situation involves a significant number of team members viewing and discussing the information its closer in scope to the second McLaren hearing.

But do we really know that both cases are even amazingly similar in nature? Again, it sounds like you are assuming you know all the specific details about both cases, which again, I'm sure you can agree that it is extremely unlikely that we do.

I'm sure you can also agree that just because two infractions may be based largely on the same sporting code violation, that there can still be significant differences between the cases that would certainly justify different outcomes, right?

Of course, for anyone to determine this, they again would have to be privy to all the details about both cases... which unfortunately, although understandably, I doubt any of us will ever know.

Given the information that has been put into the public domain, the comments of all parties involved and the press reporting I'm quite happy to say that these two cases have a lot in common.

Lets be honest I could turn that question around and ask that given what we do know can you say that these cases are that different from each other that he result should be such a dramatically different penalty for the same sporting code violation?

I agree that it would be difficult to prove 100% in either direction, but that does nothing to change my opinion given the (quite sizeable) amount of information that is available.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Blake]

Given the information that has been put into the public domain, the comments of all parties involved and the press reporting I'm quite happy to say that these two cases have a lot in common.

Indeed. The World Council has been reasonably transparent with their decisions regarding the Renault and McLaren cases, and given all the information we have I think it reasonable to say that the cases are quite similar and that the World Council has been incredibly inconsistent with their decision-making.

I found the following, in particular, to be very hypocritical.

2.2. Mackereth took a much more significant volume of information from McLaren including some confidential information, some information that was not proprietary to McLaren and some personal financial information. The WMSC can be concerned only with what Renault had access to (rather than what Mackereth took) from McLaren as only the former could impact the FIA Formula One World Championship (&#8220;the Championship&#8221.

2.3. The WMSC has concluded that of the four drawings actually viewed by Renault&#8217;s engineers, three were either of no use to Renault or were not in fact used by Renault. The fourth drawing (a drawing of McLaren&#8217;s so-called &#8216;J-damper&#8217 was used by Renault to try to have the system that they thought McLaren was using declared illegal. This failed because Renault had certain fundamental misunderstandings about the operation of the 'J-damper' system. This suggests that Renault&#8217;s sight of the 'J-damper' drawing did not give Renault enough information to understand how it worked. In these circumstances, an affect on the Championship cannot be established.

I mean, seriously, are they trying to make it obvious that they are looking the other way? The McLaren case was similar, and there was no evidence that McLaren used any of the data Coughlan had access to. But why do they err on the side of Renault in this case and come down so hard on McLaren?

They both had an employee who had data from an opposing team and who shared that information with other team members. Both teams had members who looked at the data, and neither team did anything with it. So how, in the McLaren case, was an effect on the Championship established?

 

[peterjford]

I mean, seriously, are they trying to make it obvious that they are looking the other way? The McLaren case was similar, and there was no evidence that McLaren used any of the data Coughlan had access to. But why do they err on the side of Renault in this case and come down so hard on McLaren?

They both had an employee who had data from an opposing team and who shared that information with other team members. Both teams had members who looked at the data, and neither team did anything with it. So how, in the McLaren case, was an effect on the Championship established?

But wasn't there also evidence in the second McLaren hearing that the passing of Ferrari information had been ongoing after the original passing of documents? Didn't one of De La Rosa's messages state that he believed the information to be from a good source because the same source had told them about Ferrari's pit strategy from a previous race? It seems to me that information from the second McLaren hearing showed that there was more that just the initial passing of technical information.

I also think that they came down hard on McLaren because it seemed like McLaren knew more then they admitted to originally. Sometimes the coverup is more costly than the original crime.

If this is the case then the ruling seems more in line with the original ruling against McLaren.

However after all that, it is my opinion that McLaren should have received some sort of penalty after the first hearing, and therefor Renault should have also.

 

[Famine]

It gets even better from the FIA...


The FIA are to sue Martin Brundle for libel, following newspaper column earlier in the year!

The timing of the writ is significant, in my view, given the FIA's decision to find Renault guilty of having significant McLaren designs and information within their systems, but not administering any penalty,

I expect my accreditation pass for next year will be hindered in some way to make my coverage of F1 more difficult and to punish me.

Or they will write to ITV again to say that my commentary is not up to standard despite my unprecedented six Royal Television Society Awards for sports broadcasting. So be it.

 

[Blake]

Martin Brundle rocks.

Martin Brundle and free speech&#8230;

EDIT: For those interested this is the article in question.

 

[Omnis]

It's official: I don't like F1 anymore.

 

[RACECAR]

"sigh" can't look at F1 anymore without a visit to the Courtroom. This is so damn pathetic.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

It gets even better from the FIA...

can i put this in about what they are trying to do?

 

[Metar]

Famine's link doesn't work, but from the article Blake posted, I can't see what's wrong?

 

[Blake]

Famine's link doesn't work, but from the article Blake posted, I can't see what's wrong?

He voiced his opinion, that’s what’s wrong.

 

[Famine]

Famine's link doesn't work, but from the article Blake posted, I can't see what's wrong?

Odd. I've just checked on a different PC and it works fine.

Out of interest, are you saying you don't see what's wrong with Brundle's article, or the FIA suing him?

 

[Metar]

Seems to work now, as well. Previously, it said 'Page cannot be found'.

I'm saying there's nothing wrong with Brundle's article.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Now McLaren apologises ... it seems that the FIA inspectors found more than previously admitted.

http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/pdf/Max-Mosley-and-WMSC-members.pdf (letter from Mclaren to the FIA)


EDIT: The page has been removed ... oh well, I found it strange that it was published because it said on top "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" (or something like that).

I got the link to it from here: http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071213163522.shtml