Renault, McLaren and the FIA
Discussion
Quick precis;
Renault threaten to pull the plug if found guilty.
Bernie & Max can't have that (especially as Flav is Bernies best mate & it might mean Ferdie won't get a drive.)
Renault are found not guilty.
So why were Mclaren kicked in the gentlemens area and Renault weren't?
Because Bernie & Max HATE Big Ron for trying to set up the break away championship a few years ago and are trying to make him pay. When he quits all this anti Mclaren stuff will go away
In all these matters that is one thing that you have to remember. I'm actually quite surprised that anyone thought that this would end with any other conclusion.
Renault threaten to pull the plug if found guilty.
Bernie & Max can't have that (especially as Flav is Bernies best mate & it might mean Ferdie won't get a drive.)
Renault are found not guilty.
So why were Mclaren kicked in the gentlemens area and Renault weren't?
Because Bernie & Max HATE Big Ron for trying to set up the break away championship a few years ago and are trying to make him pay. When he quits all this anti Mclaren stuff will go away
In all these matters that is one thing that you have to remember. I'm actually quite surprised that anyone thought that this would end with any other conclusion.
I have just read (well, skimmed through quickly) the official FIA press release relating to the decision and can find only one thing which maybe explains the difference between the Renault case and the McLaren one - that is in section 8.8 where it talks about "live" information. I suppose the FIA could argue that the information Coughlan got from Stepney was "live" as Stepney was working at Ferrari at the time. However, I don't remember this being pointed out as an issue in the McLaren case.
All the other information in today's press release would appear to come down to the way it has been worded such as (from 6.6) "There is no evidence before the WMSC that convinces it that the drawing of the gearbox assembly influenced or had any impact on Renault's design approach or the development of its F1 cars". I am at a loss here to understand how this statement stacks up against the statements in the McLaren case which also said that there was no evidence that any Ferrari data had influenced the McLaren design, but they were punished on the basis that the data would inform and therefore the long term implications of someone having gained that information from Ferrari had to be taken into account. So why not the same with Renault? There are lots of similar things in the release, and it is all down to the way the words are written. In the McLaren case it was all about this could mean something, whereas in the Renault case it is all about this could mean nothing.
Absolute bull from the FIA again.
All the other information in today's press release would appear to come down to the way it has been worded such as (from 6.6) "There is no evidence before the WMSC that convinces it that the drawing of the gearbox assembly influenced or had any impact on Renault's design approach or the development of its F1 cars". I am at a loss here to understand how this statement stacks up against the statements in the McLaren case which also said that there was no evidence that any Ferrari data had influenced the McLaren design, but they were punished on the basis that the data would inform and therefore the long term implications of someone having gained that information from Ferrari had to be taken into account. So why not the same with Renault? There are lots of similar things in the release, and it is all down to the way the words are written. In the McLaren case it was all about this could mean something, whereas in the Renault case it is all about this could mean nothing.
Absolute bull from the FIA again.
Thanks to megy for posting for us yesterday's verdict from the WMSC (that would be the Whatever-Max-Says Club).
We have to bear in mind that the function of a barrister, and thus his instinct, is to present the most convincing case possible on the exclusive behalf of the cause that he is representing. It is possible that one could read yesterday's verdict and come away thinking, "This was not as bad as I thought."
One can recall less than three months ago when the "second" WMSC hearing issued its punishment, shortly followed by its verdict. A literal reading of that verdict, again signed by Mosley personally, might have led one to the conclusion that what McLaren had done was quite bad. (This would be if one put to one side that no inculpatory evidence of any actual gain was ever adduced.)
A few days after that verdict was announced, the world got to see the full transcripts from the hearing. In them we could observe the pervasive lack of substance of the accusations against McLaren. It was only then that the sheer absurdity of the verdict against it became manifest and beyond dispute.
One strongly suspects that in a few days' time, when the transcript from yesterday's charade is published, its verdict will prove to have been equally offensive to fairness and common sense.
We have to bear in mind that the function of a barrister, and thus his instinct, is to present the most convincing case possible on the exclusive behalf of the cause that he is representing. It is possible that one could read yesterday's verdict and come away thinking, "This was not as bad as I thought."
One can recall less than three months ago when the "second" WMSC hearing issued its punishment, shortly followed by its verdict. A literal reading of that verdict, again signed by Mosley personally, might have led one to the conclusion that what McLaren had done was quite bad. (This would be if one put to one side that no inculpatory evidence of any actual gain was ever adduced.)
A few days after that verdict was announced, the world got to see the full transcripts from the hearing. In them we could observe the pervasive lack of substance of the accusations against McLaren. It was only then that the sheer absurdity of the verdict against it became manifest and beyond dispute.
One strongly suspects that in a few days' time, when the transcript from yesterday's charade is published, its verdict will prove to have been equally offensive to fairness and common sense.
The Hypno-Toad said:
I'm actually quite surprised that anyone thought that this would end with any other conclusion.
Some of us were expecting - at least I was - that the FIA would show itself to have just a tiny shred of class, by fining Renault $5 or $10M, which they could very easily afford. They weren't going to dock Renault points, because that would have worked against Briatore's signing of Alonso, which now almost certainly will happen (if it has not already happened).Fining Renault that nominal amount - let us remember that the flabby buffoon who is team principal has trademarked "Billionaire" - would not have been close to being proportionate to the proved offences of Renault in relation to McLaren's, and the latter's penalty, but at least it would have been a bit of a fig leaf.
Without that fig leaf, the truth about the FIA is exposed (with the assistance of an electron microscope, that is).
MrKipling43 said:
flemke said:
Those of us who have followed the sport for a while were prepared to be disappointed. You could almost say that we would have been disappointed not to be disappointed!
We were not, however, prepared to be outraged.
That's some truly British thinking, sir.We were not, however, prepared to be outraged.
flemke said:
I don't know anything that is not within the public domain, but it seems most likely that:
- It is no coincidence that the WMSC Renault hearing was held the day before the WMSC's decision on whether the 2008 McLaren is legal.
- Briatore told his pals Bernie and Max that, if Renault were hit with a big penalty, the carmaker would probably leave F1.
- Renault's departure would take a 22 car grid down to 20, with Toro Rosso and Super Aguri at some risk as well. Renault's quitting would be acutely bad press, and could conceivably encourage the same action by other big carmakers who have been pouring hundreds of millions down the F1 rathole with nothing to show for it.
- Max and Bernie, keenly wishing Renault to stay, then had communicated to McLaren:
- It's simple, Ron: if you want us to declare your '08 car "legal", you'll have to live with our giving Renault a "guilty, but no punishment" verdict, in 'the best interests of the sport', of course. Do we understand each other?".
As I say, I don't know for a fact that something like this happened, but, then again, I can't be absolutely sure that tomorrow morning the sun will rise.
I think you're on the money there Flemke. Few additional facts :- It is no coincidence that the WMSC Renault hearing was held the day before the WMSC's decision on whether the 2008 McLaren is legal.
- Briatore told his pals Bernie and Max that, if Renault were hit with a big penalty, the carmaker would probably leave F1.
- Renault's departure would take a 22 car grid down to 20, with Toro Rosso and Super Aguri at some risk as well. Renault's quitting would be acutely bad press, and could conceivably encourage the same action by other big carmakers who have been pouring hundreds of millions down the F1 rathole with nothing to show for it.
- Max and Bernie, keenly wishing Renault to stay, then had communicated to McLaren:
- It's simple, Ron: if you want us to declare your '08 car "legal", you'll have to live with our giving Renault a "guilty, but no punishment" verdict, in 'the best interests of the sport', of course. Do we understand each other?".
As I say, I don't know for a fact that something like this happened, but, then again, I can't be absolutely sure that tomorrow morning the sun will rise.
1) Jean Todt voted against the penalty in his as a member of the WMSC, despite him having a clear conflict of interest in this particular case.
2) Bernie Ecclestone also voted against the penalty as a member of the WMSC, despite him having a clear conflict of interest due to his shared business interests with Flavio Briatore.
3) Renault thought fit to remind everyone that Carlos Ghosn (chairman of Renault) is a bit lukewarm about the company's involvement in F1, and that a withdrawal would also lost F1 one of it's main factory competitors, but would also effectively end any chance of Fernando Alonso driving in F1 next year.
As far as I'm concerned, the decision was asked for and the kangaroos all jumped up and down. Where the WMSC's apparent inability to apply it's own rules consistantly (remember of course that Ferrari escaped sanction in 2007 after being caught running a car with an illegal floorpan) is anyone's guess. My view is that 2007 is going to go down as a very bad year for Formula 1.
What a load of bo
ocks. If one reads the transcript it is clear that Renault reviewed in some detail the Mclaren IP before rejecting it.
The WMSC bases its decision on the "lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected."...151c only covers "bringing competition into disrepute".
I do hope that the judgement can be appealed, because it deserves to be. Mosley makes Barwick look like a saint.
ocks. If one reads the transcript it is clear that Renault reviewed in some detail the Mclaren IP before rejecting it. The WMSC bases its decision on the "lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected."...151c only covers "bringing competition into disrepute".
I do hope that the judgement can be appealed, because it deserves to be. Mosley makes Barwick look like a saint.
rubystone said:
The WMSC bases its decision on the "lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected."...151c only covers "bringing competition into disrepute".
Well there you have it, the key phase. Compare that line with the one in the MacLaren findingWMSC ruling said:
...it is not necessary for (the WMSC) to demonstrate that any confidential Ferrari information was...put into direct use...Nor does the WMSC need to show that any information improperly held led to...any advantage at all.
And that Gentlemen is why the WMSC decision is utter boocks. I don't even think Zimbabwean courts are as pliant in thier determination as this. In fact... apologies to Zimbabwe for the comparison.Edited by corozin on Friday 7th December 17:25
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff