McLaren offices reportedly raided by FIA

[ShiftingGears]

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2868291,00.html



McLaren's Woking headquarters were reportedly raided earlier this week apparently searching for new evidence of 'cheating' with their 2008 car.


Whether or not the story is true, how would the scrutineers differentiate between whether component ideas were reached by the McLaren engineers through innovation and knowledge, and which ideas were influenced by the Ferrari design?

Seems thouroughly unenforceable to me...

[ioan]

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2868291,00.html

Whether or not the story is true, how would the scrutineers differentiate between whether component ideas were reached by the McLaren engineers through innovation and knowledge, and which ideas were influenced by the Ferrari design?

Seems thouroughly unenforceable to me...

Don't worry, they know it too.
It's just cosmetics. They will repeat this a few times in the off-season and than decide that the McLaren cars are legal.

The only threat to this could come from Ferrari, who might just have the impression that some new aero parts on the McLaren have the same effect as those on the Ferrari. In that case Ron might be toasted, again.

Honestly the 2 season ban on McLaren would have cleaned up all the mess with all the possible following stories. After all it seems that there will new aero regulations from 2009 on.

[passmeatissue]

Planet-F1 are the Daily Mail of F1 sites, and in fact the item is based on a Daily Mail article. Both of these publications make up headlines to draw in readers, for example "I'm cooler than Kimi", "I was born to be champion" were both P-F1 inventions.

Reading the text of the item it's clear this was not a "raid", it was merely the pre-arranged FIA inspection that was required under the WMSC ruling. Using terms like "squad" and "boxes of data" is designed to create an impression of a dramatic event, but all the quotes are old.

Not that Ron will have enjoyed it, even so!

[ArrowsFA1]

Another non-story :rolleyes: To describe it as a "raid" is pathetic :down:

An inspection of the 2008 McLaren was part of the verdict of the FIA hearing which we all know about weeks ago. It was always going to happen, and it was just a question of when.

[passmeatissue]

On whether they will "find" anything, for me the question is more "how mad is Max?"

With all the advance warning, and anyway being a top team with their own ideas and resources, you would think there will be nothing to find that is recognisably a Ferrari idea.

However in his BBC interview a couple of weeks ago Max sounded as though he has decided there is something and it's just a matter of finding it, didn't he? As you say there is so much scope for interpretation, that might be enough. Max's abuse of JYS has been so extreme, I wonder if he is really fully grounded these days. His vindictiveness seems to have no limits. Also I noticed that shortly after Hill criticised Max, Bernie was back on about Silverstone...

So The Axis vs. Ron and Frank is alive and well, in its fourth decade, and I am half prepared to see McLaren docked points, but not because they have really copied anything more than every other team has been able to see or ask their new recruits about.

[ArrowsFA1]

However in his BBC interview a couple of weeks ago Max sounded as though he has decided there is something and it's just a matter of finding it, didn't he?
You mean this (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63711)?

"Finding something will not be easy. On the other hand, there are sources we are going to deploy who will give us as good a chance as it's possible to have to find it."

[ioan]

So The Axis vs. Ron and Frank is alive and well, in its fourth decade, and I am half prepared to see McLaren docked points, but not because they have really copied anything more than every other team has been able to see or ask their new recruits about.

I missed the point about why is there an axis against Frank W, at all, and how is that 4 decades when Max wasn't the FIA president 40 years ago.

[ArrowsFA1]

Here's a more level-headed report of the story:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63844

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2868291,00.html


Whether or not the story is true, how would the scrutineers differentiate between whether component ideas were reached by the McLaren engineers through innovation and knowledge, and which ideas were influenced by the Ferrari design?

Seems thouroughly unenforceable to me...

They were obviously looking for more plans and top secret technical reports with the Ferrari logo stamped on them. :p :

[Tazio]

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2868291,00.html


Whether or not the story is true, how would the scrutineers differentiate between whether component ideas were reached by the McLaren engineers through innovation and knowledge, and which ideas were influenced by the Ferrari design?

Seems thouroughly unenforceable to me...
Raided?
The FIA is doing exactly what Ron agreed to when the spy verdict was issued
by the WMSC. I think you may be suffering from selective amnesia!

"FIA start investigation into McLaren's 2008 car
The motorsport governing body, FIA, began its investigation into McLaren's 2008 challenger and this as part of the World Motor Sport Council's decision in the espionage case. Investigators of the governing body visited the McLaren Technology Centre in Woking in the last couple of days, where they held a thorough examination on the premises and took with them data for further analysis."
http://www.f1technical.net/news/7590

[SGWilko]

The only threat to this could come from Ferrari, who might just have the impression that some new aero parts on the McLaren have the same effect as those on the Ferrari.

Like a front wing that produces downforce at the front, oh, and one at the rear also, that produces downforce at the rear (shock horror) . And a steering wheel, and an airbox yada yada yada........

And then, the red paint for the Santander/Vodafone decals, will be deemed 'Ferrari Red' and disallowed.

Yawn.

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA have already penalised McLaren without taking up McLaren's offer (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60479) for the FIA to examine their 2007 car, so it's good of them to look at the 2008 car :p

Having said that Ferrari data "was in the hands of the chief designer at precisely the moment he was designing the 2008 McLaren" Max went on to say (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63711)
"at this level of technology and at this level of motorsport, if the idea is given to the chief designer, he will make a component utilising that idea, which bears no relation at all to the component perhaps being used by the other car" so he's already preparing the ground for some sort of further penalty to be imposed, and he thinks a negative point allocation is more likely than exclusion.

[markabilly]

:crazy: Like I said before, even in my wildest freak-out "conspiracy paranoid" (according to others who have labelled me such) fanatasies, have I been able to out-do the FIA, geexxass, special scrutineers...the temp of gas.....this raid ....WOW!! GOOD STUFF!!! :crazy:

Of course anything crazier would be if they find erased but recoverable sniffets of the "manual" and other emails on the hard drives of LH, RD and other computers....

[ioan]

Max went on to say [/URL] so he's already preparing the ground for some sort of further penalty to be imposed, and he thinks a negative point allocation is more likely than exclusion.

There was an IF in Max comments.
I know it's just 2 letters, but it seems to me that those are the most important ones! ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

There was an IF in Max comments.
There was indeed :up: but to discuss the penalty before a verdict has even been reached is hardly appropriate.

There was indeed :up: but to discuss the penalty before a verdict has even been reached is hardly appropriate.

No, an assumption of guilt is inappropriate.

Discussing potential penalties of a potential verdict is appropriate.

However, in all of this legal technicalities that confuse you so much, there is a silver lining.

It shows you've never been to court.

[SGWilko]

No, an assumption of guilt is inappropriate.

Discussing potential penalties of a potential verdict is appropriate.

However, in all of this legal technicalities that confuse you so much, there is a silver lining.

It shows you've never been to court.

I get the impression that Max has already made the assumption that McLaren are guilty, and is busy searching for suitable 'similarities' in the design of the '08 McLaren to that of the '08 Ferrari. Never mind that increasingly restrictive regulations will lead to ever similar solutions. Then the fact that teams openly photo other teams cars when in the public domain, and Max still thinks he is going to be able to say, with confidence, that he can difference between a McLaren idea and a Ferrari inspired Mclaren idea - but is that idea from pictures taken in the public domain, or from confidential documents given to them by Ferrari (now ex) employees?

But we all know the FIA is a law unto itself, and the ability to provide proof without reasonable doubt is not an issue for these folk, because this is the FIA, not a court of law.........

I get the impression that Max has already made the assumption that McLaren are guilty

That maybe so....but then again the both of us have laboured under the wrong impression of each other, so maybe it's best to stick to the basis that Mosley hasn't said that he has already assumed guilt.

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't.

It is, however, in Mosley's remit as President of the FIA to speak of potential penalties should any infringement be found. The FIA had already stated what could happen to Mclaren before the September verdict, for example.

Most governing bodies of sports will commonly state what penalties could be imposed for a particular infringement.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I really do not believe that there will be any Ferrari intellectual property used on the MP4/23.

Ron Dennis has made some surprising errors of judgement this year, ones that have surprised me and I'm no fan of his, but to be stupid enough to have allowed his engineering department to have anything from the infamous dossier on next years car would be, well, I can't actually think of a word that would do justice to that level of idiocy.

[ioan]

There was indeed :up: but to discuss the penalty before a verdict has even been reached is hardly appropriate.

Maybe he was asked about it? Just a thought.

[ioan]

I get the impression that Max has already made the assumption that McLaren are guilty, and is busy searching for suitable 'similarities' in the design of the '08 McLaren to that of the '08 Ferrari.

That's an impression based on bias or lack of knowledge of the English language or more precisely of the meaning of the word "IF". :p :

[ioan]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I really do not believe that there will be any Ferrari intellectual property used on the MP4/23.

Ron Dennis has made some surprising errors of judgement this year, ones that have surprised me and I'm no fan of his, but to be stupid enough to have allowed his engineering department to have anything from the infamous dossier on next years car would be, well, I can't actually think of a word that would do justice to that level of idiocy.

Same here. :up:

[ArrowsFA1]

Discussing potential penalties of a potential verdict is appropriate.
Not if the potential penalties being discussed assume guilt. Max has said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63335) it is the role of the FIA "to ensure that the rules of the sport are respected and that fairness is applied consistently for all competitors". His comments in this case do not relect that required impartiality in my opinion.

Not if the potential penalties being discussed assume guilt.

Eh? The entire Justice system of the democratic world operates on the basis that an array of potential pre-determined penalties are available to be imposed following a guilty verdict.

A potential penalty has to assume that there will be an offence that has been committed to which the penalty applies.

That is very different from stating, for example, that 'x' are guilty of committing an offence.

I'm not sure you have the required knowledge of legal fine-points to understand that.

[SGWilko]

The entire Justice system of the democratic world operates on the basis that an array of potential pre-determined penalties are available to be imposed following a guilty verdict.

In a perfect world, maybe. But we are humans, and are far from perfect.

Take the good ole English legal system. Sentences (penalties) are meted out these days according to the availability of prison spaces, sad though that may be, it is a fact. We even have talk of reducing sentences to ease overcrowding.

So really, it is a case by case scenario, having some consideration to previous instances to ensure that some justice is being meted out.

A drink driver can kill someone, but only serve 4-7 years, whereas murder (as opposed to death by drink driving) is life (not that life means much these days....) I know that has jot all to do with F1, but it makes the point.

I am not aguing with you, just putting the point across you understand.

[wmcot]

There was indeed :up: but to discuss the penalty before a verdict has even been reached is hardly appropriate.

Yes, about as inappropriate as giving no penalty after a guilty verdict has been reached!

[passmeatissue]

Yes, about as inappropriate as giving no penalty after a guilty verdict has been reached!

But all they knew at that time was that Coughlan had the dossier and he and Stepney had approached Honda. McLaren were guilty only of the technicality that their employee had confidential data, because of the rule that the team is (has to be) responsible.

Max's statements about the 2008 car are too close to presupposing that there is something to find, IMO. As president of the governing body he should be neutral, but by being detailed about the penalty he creates the impression that there will have to be one.

[wmcot]

Max's statements about the 2008 car are too close to presupposing that there is something to find, IMO. As president of the governing body he should be neutral, but by being detailed about the penalty he creates the impression that there will have to be one.

I agree that he hasn't stated the case as he should have. I don't see any problem with setting a possible penalty IF the case is proven, but Max has not been that great at choosing his words lately.

[passmeatissue]

I agree that he hasn't stated the case as he should have. I don't see any problem with setting a possible penalty IF the case is proven, but Max has not been that great at choosing his words lately.

I agree, it would have been better if he had also said something about if they didn't find anything, but he couldn't bring hmself to.

McLaren have put Max on the spot now, what he does with Renault. I have a feeling that if he handles it badly opinion will turn against him, even within the FIA.

[raikk]

Don't worry, they know it too.
It's just cosmetics. They will repeat this a few times in the off-season and than decide that the McLaren cars are legal.

The only threat to this could come from Ferrari, who might just have the impression that some new aero parts on the McLaren have the same effect as those on the Ferrari. In that case Ron might be toasted, again.

Honestly the 2 season ban on McLaren would have cleaned up all the mess with all the possible following stories. After all it seems that there will new aero regulations from 2009 on.

But the FIA did not really prove that Mclaren had Ferrari data in their car.. it was just an email sent from Alonso to Pedro which Alonso blackmailed Ron with... Don't forget Toyota were found with actual Ferrari data a while back and they were just slapped on the wrist.. well you know where my argument is getting to anyways...

[wmcot]

.. it was just an email sent from Alonso to Pedro which Alonso blackmailed Ron with...

"AN" email? Don't you mean loads of emails and hundreds of text messages of Ferrari data sent to McLaren personnel? Maybe you ought to read the hearing's transcript again.

Then again, it's pretty obvious that you are biased just by looking at you sig! Denial, isn't that a river that runs near the McLaren factory? :)

[raikk]

"AN" email? Don't you mean loads of emails and hundreds of text messages of Ferrari data sent to McLaren personnel? Maybe you ought to read the hearing's transcript again.

Then again, it's pretty obvious that you are biased just by looking at you sig! Denial, isn't that a river that runs near the McLaren factory? :)

but that the FIA did not ACTUALLY go through the MP4-22 looking for data(therefore you cannot actually prove that there is Ferrari data inside until you actually take a look! :) . which the FIA should of done in the first place to begin with).. hell I can send you 100 email messages about supposed Ferrari data.. and again I will point out to you that TOYOTA had Ferrari data.. yet they were not punished how come?..Spying has been in Formula 1 forever and now all of a sudden they make a big deal about it heh to little to late I say!
Isnt everyone biased though? I'm just making a statement of how I feel.. If I was that extreme I would of put Mclaren deserved 2007 WCC and WDC champions ;) .. I know I'm not the only one by a long shot that feels Mclaren got robbed..

[ArrowsFA1]

I'm not sure you have the required knowledge of legal fine-points to understand that.
My opinion, which you chose to demean in order to 'score points', is that the FIA President, by his comments, appears to assume that an offence has been committed by McLaren with regard to their 2008 car. Whether that is the case or not has yet to be established, and until it is any discussion of what penalty should be applied is inappropriate in my opinion.

[555-04Q2]

http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2868291,00.html


Whether or not the story is true, how would the scrutineers differentiate between whether component ideas were reached by the McLaren engineers through innovation and knowledge, and which ideas were influenced by the Ferrari design?

Seems thouroughly unenforceable to me...

I got tiped off from an inside source that the FIA were going to raid my underwear draw tomorrow, so I'm gonna put all 20 pairs on under my pants and hide the evidence just in case :p :

[ioan]

Denial, isn't that a river that runs near the McLaren factory? :)

Nah, it runs right through it! ;)

[ioan]

I got tiped off from an inside source that the FIA were going to raid my underwear draw tomorrow, so I'm gonna put all 20 pairs on under my pants and hide the evidence just in case :p :

:rotflmao:

[ArrowsFA1]

While were talking about rivers (well, it's a distraction :p : ) Roman legend has it that a 'River Duplicitous' runs from Paris to the province of Modena where it joins the River Secchia (which according to some translations means 'bucket'). Over the years officials in Paris have been known to send great gifts via the Duplicitous route which were collected in buckets and taken to a factory in Maranello. Needless to say the factory enjoyed great prosperity as a result :D

[markabilly]

I got tiped off from an inside source that the FIA were going to raid my underwear draw tomorrow, so I'm gonna put all 20 pairs on under my pants and hide the evidence just in case :p :
You really should wash them first.....otherwise the odor will be an easy trail to follow..

[SGWilko]

You really should wash them first.....otherwise the odor will be an easy trail to follow..

We wash our 'smalls' before they go into the drawer. Do you not practice this ritual? ;)

[aryan]

Eh? The entire Justice system of the democratic world operates on the basis that an array of potential pre-determined penalties are available to be imposed following a guilty verdict.


Wow! Where did you get your practice license from?

[ArrowsFA1]

Speaking of "pre-determined penalties"...do the FIA have such things?

My opinion, which you chose to demean in order to 'score points', is that the FIA President, by his comments, appears to assume that an offence has been committed by McLaren with regard to their 2008 car. Whether that is the case or not has yet to be established, and until it is any discussion of what penalty should be applied is inappropriate in my opinion.

I was not 'scoring points', merely stating that your opinion doesn't seem to be based on having much detailed knowledge of judicial sequences. I'm sorry if you took offense as none was intended.

I am just pointing out that it is common practice for the Judge in a case, be it crown, state, civil or, as in this case, governing body appointed, to clearly state to both the defense and the prosecution the range of possible penalties, as pre-determined by the acting legal authority, that can be imposed and he/she will do that before the start of a hearing.

In this respect, Mosley has done nothing wrong.

Now your 'opinion' may be that this is wrong, and that the President of an authority, or the Law Lords in a state or crown case, should not talk about penalties or an assumption of guilt, but it is a fact of life that this happens all the time in every democratic legal system and sporting governing body.

If it didn't, then the accused would have no idea what penalties they were potentially facing and having to defend themselves against.

That, incidentally, is completely unfair. Imagine being told that you must attend a court hearing for an offence and the penalty you could face being completely secret until the end of the hearing.

Do you not agree that this would not be right?

So, perhaps instead of berating the head of the sporting authority, perhaps with the above mentioned information you might just be able to see why it was actually quite reasonable for the President of the FIA to publically discuss the possible penalties for a possible infringement.

It's interesting that you say that the President of the FIA.....

"appears to assume that an offence has been committed by McLaren"

.......because he has not stated anywhere that he is assuming anything of the sort.

Why say he appears to be doing something which there is no evidence of?

Isn't that exactly the sort of assumption that you are yourself getting annoyed about?

So, instead of accusing others of 'scoring points' you could perhaps stop falsely interpreting the statements of the FIA president in order to score your own?

Or will you just stop debating, as per your normal tactic when your arguments unravel?

[ArrowsFA1]

Now your 'opinion' may be that this is wrong, and that the President of an authority, or the Law Lords in a state or crown case, should not talk about penalties or an assumption of guilt, but it is a fact of life that this happens all the time in every democratic legal system and sporting governing body.
My opinion, as I've said, is simply that the FIA President should not have commented on the likely penalties that could be imposed on (in this case) McLaren before the FIA has examined their 2008 car.

There may not be anything that prevents him from doing so, and it may very well be done by Law Lords in a state or crown case, but that does not alter my view, particularly as my concern is F1. Max has said it is the FIA's role to be fair, and by commenting in the way he has I don't believe the FIA President has been seen to be fair, nor has he exercised good judgment given the circumstances.

Imagine being told that you must attend a court hearing for an offence and the penalty you could face being completely secret until the end of the hearing.

Do you not agree that this would not be right?
Hence my question about "pre-determined penalties". It is my opinion that the FIA do not have such things, and those accused have no idea what penalties they are potentially facing and having to defend themselves against.

Did McLaren know that they could expect a $100m fine, or was that sum arrived at on the basis of their ability to pay? Was that sum discussed in public by Max Mosley before the FIA hearing? Do Williams and BMW know what penalty to expect at the upcoming hearing should they be found guilty, or will the FIA decide that having heard the evidence?

Why say he appears to be doing something which there is no evidence of?
This (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63711) is the report I believe we are discussing:


"That [Ferrari data] was in the hands of the chief designer at precisely the moment he was designing the 2008 McLaren," Mosley told the BBC in an interview.
"The difficulty we have is that you're not going to find on the McLaren a part that was designed by Ferrari. Instead, what you may find are ideas.
"But at this level of technology and at this level of motorsport, if the idea is given to the chief designer, he will make a component utilising that idea, which bears no relation at all to the component perhaps being used by the other car.
"So we will be looking for the ideas.
"Finding something will not be easy. On the other hand, there are sources we are going to deploy who will give us as good a chance as it's possible to have to find it."
"The investigation will be thorough, it will use outside experts and we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that either of the McLarens has no element of Ferrari intellectual property in it. If it does, we will then have to consider taking some sort of action."
Mosley said, however, that McLaren would not necessarily be excluded from the championship again.
"That would not necessarily be preventing them from running," he said. "It would be more likely that they would be given a negative point allocation."

As a trained lawyer Max is well aware of the words he uses, and the context in which he uses them, and here he appears to be the prosecution, judge and jury.

He presents the link (proven?) between the Ferrari data, Couglan, and the 2008 car. He then dismisses the idea that there would be actual Ferrari parts on the McLaren (as if that was ever a possibility!!) and then introduces the intagible "ideas". In case we had a problem with that he points out that the chief designer can make parts using the ideas without appearing to use those ideas. Fortunately, however, the FIA have experts who will do their utmost to see through this clever wheeze. He briefly introduces the possibility there may be no Ferrari IP to be found, but moves on to discuss what penalty might be applied.

So, instead of accusing others of 'scoring points' you could perhaps stop falsely interpreting the statements of the FIA president in order to score your own?
I may be alone in thinking that his comments are slanted against McLaren, but I don't believe so.

Or will you just stop debating, as per your normal tactic when your arguments unravel?
tamburello, I'm quite happy to debate & discuss with those who are prepared to do the same. If you wish to misrepresent one instance in this way that is entirely up to you, just as it is entirely up to me, or anyone, to stop posting in any thread for whatever reason. It is unfortunate that such reasons have become more frequent recently.

[ioan]

Speaking of "pre-determined penalties"...do the FIA have such things?

Yep plenty of them, too many of them, as many that they can rarely find the same twice!

[ioan]

There was indeed :up: but to discuss the penalty before a verdict has even been reached is hardly appropriate.

By the way i just remembered how Bernie was publicly stating, before the first hearing, that there will be no penalty on McLaren
And there was no penalty on McLaren after the first hearing.
And the large majority of the forum was not up in arms against Bernie doing this although he is the commercial rights holder AND member of the WMSC, the same WMSC that had to judge McLaren's doings!

Interesting! :s mokin:

[Bagwan]

Arrows , you need to understand that this statement from Max is , from another viewpoint , a different animal entirely .

The FIA and WMSC have engineered the perfect storm in this scandal .

You believe McLaren was handled harshly this year , and those for Ferrari feel it was a gift they were even allowed to remain in until the end .
Nobody is happy .


McLaren has to comply with this , and will do so willingly .
Max needs to put forth a forceful tone , so as to appear that the issue is as serious as it is .

It needs to be dealt with in the most comprehensive way they can muster , in fact , because this issue must be put to bed here .
And , this is not just about the black cloud hovering over McLaren , remember , but an issue that has nobody that watches F1 happy .

If history repeats , we will have an ambiguous decision , designed to keep everyone happy , but resulting in nobody being so .
I hope not , but we should be prepared .


The best we can hope for , in my opinion , is to see Max go in like a bulldog , tearing the place apart , and finding nothing , declaring the series and specifically , the McLaren badge clean and polished once again .

[ioan]

The best we can hope for , in my opinion , is to see Max go in like a bulldog , tearing the place apart , and finding nothing , declaring the series and specifically , the McLaren badge clean and polished once again .

That's what they are engineering at the moment.
And McLaren fans are having exactly the attitude they were expecting from them. Talk about predictability of the masses. :D

[wmcot]

but that the FIA did not ACTUALLY go through the MP4-22 looking for data(therefore you cannot actually prove that there is Ferrari data inside until you actually take a look! :) . which the FIA should of done in the first place to begin with).. hell I can send you 100 email messages about supposed Ferrari data.. and again I will point out to you that TOYOTA had Ferrari data.. yet they were not punished how come?..Spying has been in Formula 1 forever and now all of a sudden they make a big deal about it heh to little to late I say!
Isnt everyone biased though? I'm just making a statement of how I feel.. If I was that extreme I would of put Mclaren deserved 2007 WCC and WDC champions ;) .. I know I'm not the only one by a long shot that feels Mclaren got robbed..

They didn't need to prove that Ferrari data was "inside" the MP4/22, just that McLaren had gobs of illegally obtained confidential data in their organization. (Which they lied about in the first case.)

As far as Toyota goes, I have no idea why that wasn't prosecuted in the same way - I suspect money was involved or the threat to pull out of F1?

[ioan]

They didn't need to prove that Ferrari data was "inside" the MP4/22, just that McLaren had gobs of illegally obtained confidential data in their organization. (Which they lied about in the first case.)

As far as Toyota goes, I have no idea why that wasn't prosecuted in the same way - I suspect money was involved or the threat to pull out of F1?

With Toyota it was more the fact that they were in their testing year before competing in F1, or maybe in their very first season thus they did not pose any danger to Ferrari. In that case Ferrari didn't protest to the FIA but instead they took the matter to a legal court, and we all know what happened after that.

[BDunnell]

By the way i just remembered how Bernie was publicly stating, before the first hearing, that there will be no penalty on McLaren
And there was no penalty on McLaren after the first hearing.
And the large majority of the forum was not up in arms against Bernie doing this although he is the commercial rights holder AND member of the WMSC, the same WMSC that had to judge McLaren's doings!


This is all part of the reason why I have severe misgivings over the way F1 is run and governed. All of the recent events have shown that there are far too many vested interests at play, which, for one thing, go against any attempts at consistency.

[ioan]

This is all part of the reason why I have severe misgivings over the way F1 is run and governed. All of the recent events have shown that there are far too many vested interests at play, which, for one thing, go against any attempts at consistency.

Sad but true.
People who have financial interests (Bernie, Stewart etc) in F1 seem to try to influence all the decisions that could harm their interests.

That clearly show that F1 is not a sport but a business for them big sharks.
I honestly pity Mosley for his position in all this mess, as whatever he does one party or another will throw mud at him. :\

[BDunnell]

Sad but true.
People who have financial interests (Bernie, Stewart etc) in F1 seem to try to influence all the decisions that could harm their interests.

That clearly show that F1 is not a sport but a business for them big sharks.
I honestly pity Mosley for his position in all this mess, as whatever he does one party or another will throw mud at him. :\

Mosley is just as much a part of the problem as anyone else, and far more so than one of the people you choose to mention. And it's hardly a revelation that F1 is big business. It always amazes me how quickly people who are not socialists turn into them when discussing how disgusted they are by the money in sport. Sadly, this is an inevitable progression in the higher echelons of sport.

[markabilly]

This is all part of the reason why I have severe misgivings over the way F1 is run and governed. All of the recent events have shown that there are far too many vested interests at play, which, for one thing, go against any attempts at consistency.

Careful, you are beginning to sound like that crazy paranoid conspiracy nut case markabilly.......

Under no circumtances, should anyone assume that because Flavio is the business partner of bernie that this will have any effect on the outcome of any investigation, who unlike RD failed to establish a proper business realtionship with Bernie.....

nor should anyone assume that it had any effect regarding the recent internal meeting of all teams called by Bernie where he demanded that all spying now be handled internally within the team (and obviously not in the media)

Of course, I always thought that spying was best done internally, not in the media as those people babble too much and spying needs to be done quietly as possible so the spied upon does know know the spyer is stealing his secrets on "how to successfully cheat without getting caught" and selling them to some other team.....

and just what is the point in hiring another team's engineer if you can not have the secrets go with him? Might as well keep whatever engineer you already got..... :rolleyes:

[wmcot]

Mosley is just as much a part of the problem as anyone else, and far more so than one of the people you choose to mention. And it's hardly a revelation that F1 is big business. It always amazes me how quickly people who are not socialists turn into them when discussing how disgusted they are by the money in sport. Sadly, this is an inevitable progression in the higher echelons of sport.

Quite true - name a major sport that is not about the money! It's often more interesting and entertaining (closer to true "sport") to watch college sports or local racing than it is to watch the "professionals."

[SGWilko]

Quite true - name a major sport that is not about the money!

Rugger?

[raikk]

They didn't need to prove that Ferrari data was "inside" the MP4/22, just that McLaren had gobs of illegally obtained confidential data in their organization. (Which they lied about in the first case.)

As far as Toyota goes, I have no idea why that wasn't prosecuted in the same way - I suspect money was involved or the threat to pull out of F1?

Also if the team gets punished for one man within the teams doings.. why wernt Ferrari punished as well.. after all it was one of their employee's that GAVE one of the Mclaren engineer the information.. It's not like Ron broke into Ferrari headquarters Mission Impossible style.. If the team is responsible for one man within the teams actions It seems a bit hypocritical to me :)

[ioan]

Also if the team gets punished for one man within the teams doings.. why wernt Ferrari punished as well.. after all it was one of their employee's that GAVE one of the Mclaren engineer the information.. It's not like Ron broke into Ferrari headquarters Mission Impossible style.. If the team is responsible for one man within the teams actions It seems a bit hypocritical to me :)

This was discussed ad nausea, and for those that didn't get it with complicated legal terms people even gave examples of equivalents ranging from everyday life to Tom & Jerry levels! :rolleyes:

[raikk]

This was discussed ad nausea, and for those that didn't get it with complicated legal terms people even gave examples of equivalents ranging from everyday life to Tom & Jerry levels! :rolleyes:

please explain :) .. after all through out this saga I was away in Europe enjoying racing

[ioan]

please explain :) .. after all through out this saga I was away in Europe enjoying racing

Explain? Read the forum for yourself.

[BDunnell]

What a veritable treat raikk has in store...

[wmcot]

Also if the team gets punished for one man within the teams doings.. why wernt Ferrari punished as well.. after all it was one of their employee's that GAVE one of the Mclaren engineer the information.. It's not like Ron broke into Ferrari headquarters Mission Impossible style.. If the team is responsible for one man within the teams actions It seems a bit hypocritical to me :)

By your logic, McLaren should be punished again since it was one of their former employees who "gave" the data to Renault! Should we fine Ron another $100 million?

Please go back and read the pages and pages of discussion.