Sport and Disrepute
Discussion
Decided that I wanted to start another thread on this rather than add to the others.
As a motorsport fan of many years standing who has heard lots of talk about events bringing the sport into disrepute I am of the conclusion that, particularly yesterday, the group which has brought the most disrepute on the sport I am passionate about is the FIA themselves. Having read the FIA judgement about yesterdays court hearing there are two main areas which I think highlight this:
The point which really brings the sport into disrepute, for me though is this:
Does anyone agree?
If they could be considered to be bringing the sport into disrepute is there anything which could be done about it, e.g taking court action against the FIA? I have neither the time or the resources to pursue such a claim, but would be interested to know if it might be possible.
As a motorsport fan of many years standing who has heard lots of talk about events bringing the sport into disrepute I am of the conclusion that, particularly yesterday, the group which has brought the most disrepute on the sport I am passionate about is the FIA themselves. Having read the FIA judgement about yesterdays court hearing there are two main areas which I think highlight this:
FIA said:
5.3 The WMSC does not have evidence that any complete Ferrari design was copied and subsequently wholly incorporated into the McLaren car as a result of Coughlan passing confidential from Stepney to McLaren. However, it is difficult to accept that the secret Ferrari information that was within Coughlan’s knowledge never influenced his judgement in the performance of his duties. It is not necessary for McLaren to have copied a complete Ferrari design for it to have benefited from Coughlan’s knowledge. For example, the secret Ferrari information cannot but have informed the views Coughlan expressed to others in the McLaren design department, for example regarding which design projects to prioritise or which research to pursue. The advantage gained may have been as subtle as Coughlan being in a position to suggest alternative ways of approaching different design challenges.
This is, whilst a potentially indisputable statement, cannot be considered realistic as every time a team member moves from one team to another they would take knowledge with them and therefore every team in F1 is in breach of a regulation that does not exist, but one team has been singled out for punishment of it. As a simple example, presumably when Ferrari hired Ross Brawn they did so for his knowledge of what was included in the Benetton which had won races.The point which really brings the sport into disrepute, for me though is this:
FIA said:
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.
This indicates that the FIA believe they are above the law. For an organisation who appear to be unaccountable to take such an arrogant view, particularly with point 5.3, I believe they are damaging the credibility of the sport, bringing it into disrepute.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.
Does anyone agree?
If they could be considered to be bringing the sport into disrepute is there anything which could be done about it, e.g taking court action against the FIA? I have neither the time or the resources to pursue such a claim, but would be interested to know if it might be possible.
andyps said:
This indicates that the FIA believe they are above the law.
Therein lies the rub. But nothing can be done about it without losing F1, and its history. If all the teams were brave enough, they would challenge the FIA in the European Courts and win, and would need to pick up the pieces somehow to start again. But that would destroy that which they have invested so much in over the years. It's not going to happen. Eddie Jordan and others bailed out when it came to the crunch a few years ago (with Stoddart), and others would do the same now.Sadly, the megalomaniac Mosley marches onwards...
Edited by jacobyte on Friday 14th September 23:12
kenthardy said:
andyps said:
This indicates that the FIA believe they are above the law.
Errr surely as a governing body - which status is enshrined in international law just like FIFA etc - they ARE the law!!!!kenthardy said:
andyps said:
This indicates that the FIA believe they are above the law.
Errr surely as a governing body - which status is enshrined in international law just like FIFA etc - they ARE the law!!!!Further, even if no criminal offence has been committed they are still open to civil proceedings, no matter how much they might think otherwise (e.g. no appeal clauses). To be specific, if the FIA has acted unreasonably, vindictively, in their own interests regardless of fair play, then they render the decision liable to be challenged in a civil court. If that court, after enquiring into the matter feels the need, it can direct the directors to revisit the decision. In other words, change it.
I'm not sure what happens if the directors refuse as I know of no case where they have, but one would assume financial penalties could be involved as well as, possibly, contempt. In any case, once the civil court has made such a decision, it leads the way open to cocsts, damages, punitive damages (likely if the directive is not followed immediately), and all that sort of thing.
However, thee is a high level of proof required to prove that they acted unreasonably. But one might consider that the mere possession of the document merited no penalty so the new information must be taken on its own. The penalty of £50m or £25m whichever way it is looked at, might seem totally out of order when no deliberate act has been proven or even suggested on behalf of McLaren International. The fact that they might have gained a competative advantage over and above what is normal in the sport has been negated by the loss of points.
I personally feel that the people who acted dishonestly, ie knowingly accepting information that they had no rights to, that's PDLaR, Alonso and Coughlan should not be seem not to have got awaay without being punished in any way, shape or form. That, I feel, could be challenged by Ferrari. One wonders if they have let that go for the loss of constructor points - or, to put it another way, the gift of the championship. The fact that Hamilton was not implicated in any way must have come as a big relief to McLaren International.
All the above is written by a lay person with some, but fairly limited experiences of such challenges.
Coughlan was 'Chief Designer' at McLaren, not office teaboy.
Is it even remotely conceivable that he had access to huge amounts of Ferrari technical information but didn't use any of it in his day to day job? Or that he readily passed such information to the drivers but didn't share any of it with his close colleagues in the design department?
The casual references to Stepney and Ferrari by De La Rosa suggest to me that it was pretty much common knowledge at McLaren.
Is it even remotely conceivable that he had access to huge amounts of Ferrari technical information but didn't use any of it in his day to day job? Or that he readily passed such information to the drivers but didn't share any of it with his close colleagues in the design department?
The casual references to Stepney and Ferrari by De La Rosa suggest to me that it was pretty much common knowledge at McLaren.
David_s said:
The casual references to Stepney and Ferrari by De La Rosa suggest to me that it was pretty much common knowledge at McLaren.
It is clear that Coughlan and Stepney had some form of plan. They were, it has been reported, touting something to other teams. One wonders is they were not only selling their own skills and knowledge but also a couple of drivers and, they would hope, the number 1. If this is true then, one would assume - and there're no texts or phone calls to suggest otherwise - that whilst is was a conversation piece between the persons concerned, they would have kept it to themselves.The information could have been given to McLaren in spite by Stepney but then why this approach to other teams as well? It's all very tacky and PDLaR and Alonso are covered in the sticky stuff. If it was 'common knowledge' one wonders why Hamilton didn't mention Nigel on his calls and texts.
The evidence all points to four co-conspiritors. There might well have been blind-eyes being turned but, given that lots of info flows back and forward between teams, the source would not necessarily be assumed to be tainted.
Further I remember reading that the set-up information was not used by the drivers. I can't remember the actual words and I don't fancy wading through 14 pages again but one wonders if there was a suspicion they might be caught? That is, of course, pure supposition, but no more so that yours that everyone aat McLaren knew about the source of the info.
If, and only on the balance of probabilities, it was felt by the FIA that there was systematic cheating by McLaren and Ron Dennis the only penalty would have to have been the exclusion from all motor racing of him and his team.
It doesn't have to be cheating by Ron Dennis AND the team, the team is held responsible for the actions of its employees. No different to corporate law and ltd company responsibility for employees.
If, as has been suggested, there was a conspiracy between Stepney and Coughlan to further their careers elsewhere in F1, why was Alonso aware of the information? In early March Alonso was a key member of the McLaren team signed on a multi year contract, why would Coughlan tell him about the Stepney information?
Does anyone really believe that a 'Chief Designer' with a comprehensive dossier of Ferrari information and a hotline to a key Ferrari employee would not use such information in is day to day job? The following extracts would suggest that Couglan, on behalf of his employer, was making substantial use of the information in his possesion. Note the 'we' in "we are looking at something similar".
3.13 Mr de la Rosa's e-mail to Mr. Alonso on 25 March 2007 at 01.43 identified a gas that Ferrari uses to inflate its tyres to reduce the internal temperature and blistering. The e-mail concludes with a statement (in relation to the gas) that "we'll have to try it, it's easy!".
3.14 Mr Alonso replied at 12.31 that it is "very important" that McLaren test the gas that Ferrari uses in its tyres as "they have something different from the rest", and "not only this year. there is something else and this may be the key; let's hope we can test it during this test, and that we can make it a priority!".
3.19 After a number of exchanges about whether a description would be too complicated to articulate by e-mail, Mr. Coughlan replies on 14 April 2007 at 14.40 with a technical description which purports to be a description of the principles underpinning the Ferrari braking system. Ferrari have confirmed that the description given is an accurate (though incomplete) description of the principles of its braking system. Coughlan concludes with a statement that "we are looking at something similar". This latter statement strongly suggests that the McLaren system was being worked on from a position of knowledge of the details of the Ferrari system, which, even if the Ferrari system not being directly copied, must be more advantageous to McLaren than designing a system without such knowledge.
If, as has been suggested, there was a conspiracy between Stepney and Coughlan to further their careers elsewhere in F1, why was Alonso aware of the information? In early March Alonso was a key member of the McLaren team signed on a multi year contract, why would Coughlan tell him about the Stepney information?
Does anyone really believe that a 'Chief Designer' with a comprehensive dossier of Ferrari information and a hotline to a key Ferrari employee would not use such information in is day to day job? The following extracts would suggest that Couglan, on behalf of his employer, was making substantial use of the information in his possesion. Note the 'we' in "we are looking at something similar".
3.13 Mr de la Rosa's e-mail to Mr. Alonso on 25 March 2007 at 01.43 identified a gas that Ferrari uses to inflate its tyres to reduce the internal temperature and blistering. The e-mail concludes with a statement (in relation to the gas) that "we'll have to try it, it's easy!".
3.14 Mr Alonso replied at 12.31 that it is "very important" that McLaren test the gas that Ferrari uses in its tyres as "they have something different from the rest", and "not only this year. there is something else and this may be the key; let's hope we can test it during this test, and that we can make it a priority!".
3.19 After a number of exchanges about whether a description would be too complicated to articulate by e-mail, Mr. Coughlan replies on 14 April 2007 at 14.40 with a technical description which purports to be a description of the principles underpinning the Ferrari braking system. Ferrari have confirmed that the description given is an accurate (though incomplete) description of the principles of its braking system. Coughlan concludes with a statement that "we are looking at something similar". This latter statement strongly suggests that the McLaren system was being worked on from a position of knowledge of the details of the Ferrari system, which, even if the Ferrari system not being directly copied, must be more advantageous to McLaren than designing a system without such knowledge.
David_s said:
It doesn't have to be cheating by Ron Dennis AND the team, the team is held responsible for the actions of its employees. No different to corporate law and ltd company responsibility for employees.
No argument there. Indeed, Mclaren were found guilty for just such a breech at the initial hearing. The only question is whether the additional facts at the second hearing justified the additional punishment.David_s said:
If, as has been suggested, there was a conspiracy between Stepney and Coughlan to further their careers elsewhere in F1, why was Alonso aware of the information? In early March Alonso was a key member of the McLaren team signed on a multi year contract, why would Coughlan tell him about the Stepney information?
There seems to be an acceptance that Alonso wanted out of his contract with McLaren from the early days. He thought, or at least has said, that he was left with the impression that he was to be treated as the No.1 driver. It must have been apparent to him from day one that this was not so. An approach from two well-respected engineers at the peak of their careers who put a proposition to him that would appear, on the surface, to contain no risks yet have the promise of lots and lots of benefits and edge over his team-mate - he must have thought it was Christmas. And it probaly was, or just after.Alonso is self seeking. He's a GP driver and which one isn't? He burned his bridges with Renault by silly behaviour and might well have done so again.
Stepney and Coughlan would have benefitted from including a top-class driver in any package they took to another team.
[quote=David}Does anyone really believe that a 'Chief Designer' with a comprehensive dossier of Ferrari information and a hotline to a key Ferrari employee would not use such information in is day to day job?
If McLaren had been found guilty of systematic cheating, and only on the balance of probabilities remember, no real proof required, then the only possible penalty would have been exclusion from F1 completely.
The team that Stepney and Coughlan were talking to was Honda, do you think there was any chance at all of Alonso leaving Mclaren for Honda? Whilst Honda may well have been a good career move for a couple of engineers with a lot of information to offer, I can see absolutely no benefit in such a move for Alonso.
Interestingly, it would appear that RD informed the FIA of the existence of incriminating e-mails between Coughlan/Alonso/De La Rosa after Alonso tried to 'persuade' RD to award him no. 1 driver status. Do you seriously believe that this is the first RD knew of the e-mail exchange? Did the team not uncover the e-mails in their earlier investigation? Was this info deliberately witheld from the first hearing?
Interestingly, it would appear that RD informed the FIA of the existence of incriminating e-mails between Coughlan/Alonso/De La Rosa after Alonso tried to 'persuade' RD to award him no. 1 driver status. Do you seriously believe that this is the first RD knew of the e-mail exchange? Did the team not uncover the e-mails in their earlier investigation? Was this info deliberately witheld from the first hearing?
Edited by David_s on Saturday 15th September 13:16
David_s said:
The team that Stepney and Coughlan were talking to was Honda, do you think there was any chance at all of Alonso leaving Mclaren for Honda? Whilst Honda may well have been a good career move for a couple of engineers with a lot of information to offer, I can see absolutely no benefit in such a move for Alonso.
Interestingly, it would appear that RD informed the FIA of the existence of incriminating e-mails between Coughlan/Alonso/De La Rosa after Alonso tried to blackmail him for no. 1 driver status. Do you seriously believe that this is the first RD knew of the e-mail exchange? Did the team not uncover the e-mails in their earlier investigation? Was this info deliberately witheld from the first hearing?
Honda wasn't the only team in the frame. You have to ask what other teams might be interested in Alonso. Ferrari and their tremendous paypacket would appear to be have been out of reach of Alonso for 2008, and even more so as the season moved on. It was only the poor reliability/build quality of the Ferrari that stopped this season being a race between Raik and Massa, at least until sufficient lead had been built up for them to stop all forms of competition.Interestingly, it would appear that RD informed the FIA of the existence of incriminating e-mails between Coughlan/Alonso/De La Rosa after Alonso tried to blackmail him for no. 1 driver status. Do you seriously believe that this is the first RD knew of the e-mail exchange? Did the team not uncover the e-mails in their earlier investigation? Was this info deliberately witheld from the first hearing?
Further, I read the Alonso informed RD of the emails at Hungary thereby forcing him to declare them.
My opinion is that in declaring the emails he was acting under instruction as it allowed the FIA to punish someone for Stepney/Coughlan's actions without ruining Alonso's employment prospects for 2008. I wonder what would have happened if the FIA had found them (assuming they hadn't) without them being declared. Alonso would have to be punished and severly. A two year ban for the two chaps from Spain would have put paid to the resurgence of interest in F1 in the Iberian Peninsula. All in all, just telling Rd of the emails was a subtle but inspired move that seems beyond the Spaniard.
The accusation of blackmail is a bit harsh without something to support it. It's a very serious offence.
I don't think we are going to convince one another. But what I will say is that, going by the evidence produced by the FIA, Ron Dennis and McLaren International have not been accused of, nor found guilty of cheating. They have, and I accept this, benefited from Stepney's outrageous behaviour in which one of their own senior member of staff was complicit. PDLaR and Alonso have been proved, and have admitted, cheating although both have said that they did not pass the information on to any other staff (this despite the fact that they could confess to killing the pope and got away with it).
McI should be punished. They did not maintain sufficient control over their employees. But the gravity of this is modified to a grteat extent by the fact that the complainants in the matter did not, obviously, do the same with their staff.
£50m is a political gesture and not a just one.
Losing the constructor's points? I can see the logic and wouldn't argue.
Letting PDLaR and Alonso get away with blatent dishonesty is absolutely outrageous.
andyps said:
presumably when Ferrari hired Ross Brawn they did so for his knowledge of what was included in the Benetton which had won races.
The difference here is of course that this transfer of Ross Brawn was legal. The systematic transfer of data from a Ferrari employee to a McLaren one is of course illegal.Mr_Thyroid said:
andyps said:
presumably when Ferrari hired Ross Brawn they did so for his knowledge of what was included in the Benetton which had won races.
The difference here is of course that this transfer of Ross Brawn was legal. The systematic transfer of data from a Ferrari employee to a McLaren one is of course illegal.Basically, I was trying to ask if people feel that the actions of the FIA, and statements made by Mosley constitute bringing the sport into disrepute.
andyps said:
Basically, I was trying to ask if people feel that the actions of the FIA, and statements made by Mosley constitute bringing the sport into disrepute.
There is another thread with over 50 pages that details the ins and outs of the communication and technical issues that some are starting to debate again here.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=435051
I think the "sport" of F1 is a mockery. With some of the committee members deciding the fate of McLaren having links to Ferrari and the very obvious personal dislike of Ron Dennis by Max Mosley, I find the whole matter very distasteful and I think Andy has made a very valid point.
F1 has been brought into disrepute by Mosley and he should be sacked.
Edited by Tankman on Monday 17th September 10:21
I have been pondering the FIA bringing the sport into disrepute for a while, and as a fan of motorsport, I have for quite a while been very concerned about the behaviour of the FIA. Now as a fan of the sport, without a particular bias for any team, (however my stance has changed slightly, I still am not biased I don’t care who beats Ferrari) I feel an injustice with McLaren has taken place. The FIA has damaged the sport for many reasons that other threads go into. How can I make it known to the FIA that their behaviour is not acceptable, could a group of fans get together and sue the FIA for bringing the sport into disrepute. The FIA are not above the law and the way they have handled the recent case would not stand up in a court of law, so surely they should be brought to account. I understand why the teams can’t do it. But why can’t an individual/group. After all if we buy cars and watch motorsport we are a customers of the FIA.
andyps said:
As a motorsport fan of many years standing who has heard lots of talk about events bringing the sport into disrepute I am of the conclusion that, particularly yesterday, the group which has brought the most disrepute on the sport I am passionate about is the FIA themselves.
- The only way that McLaren could have demonstrated that they had not applied what Coughlan had acquired was for the FIA technical team to come to McLaren and undertake an unlimited investigation into McLaren's car and the design process and records that underlay it. McLaren implored the FIA several times to undertake just such an investigation, yet the FIA refused to do so.
- Max Mosley said himself that the standard of proof that he required was "suspicion".
- Just a few months before the McLaren hearings and penalty, Toyota employess were found guilty in a criminal court of purloining and applying to the Toyota car IP that belonged to Ferrari. Those convicted were given jail sentences. For this offence, which was similar in type but more serious than the allegations against McLaren employees, the Toyota organisation received no sanction from the FIA - not even a comment.
With this background, the FIA nonetheless chose to impose on McLaren the heaviest fine in sporting history, plus strip it of its expected Constructors' Championship, plus include actual penalties for next season that derive from finishing last in this year's CC, plus requiring McLaren to make available its 2008 car for extraordinary FIA inspection (the same treatment that the FIA could not be bothered to undertake on the 2007 car, which undertaking might have been exculpatory).
Not only this, but the FIA President has said, based on his "suspicion", that he sought for the penalty to be harsher still.
For years many neutral observers have questioned the FIA's fairness and creditability. This charade has proved that even the FIA's greatest critics had not been cynical enough.
Bringing the sport into disrepute? The FIA has made its governance of motorsport, and necessarily the sport itself, into a laughingstock.
... and a laughingstock, with more money than sense. As usual.
I'd just like to threaten the FIA with 'unfair monopoly' for starters.
Many more cockups like this and I think F1 motorsport will really start to lose credibility. Politicians the world over appear to underestimate the intelligence of the supporters in this day and age. And I think F1 is breaking less new ground than it was.
It will disappear up it's chuff, just sooner. The FIA's behaviour is despicable IMHO.
I'd just like to threaten the FIA with 'unfair monopoly' for starters.
Many more cockups like this and I think F1 motorsport will really start to lose credibility. Politicians the world over appear to underestimate the intelligence of the supporters in this day and age. And I think F1 is breaking less new ground than it was.
It will disappear up it's chuff, just sooner. The FIA's behaviour is despicable IMHO.
PJS917 said:
The FIA are not above the law and the way they have handled the recent case would not stand up in a court of law, so surely they should be brought to account.
The FIA may not be above the law, but Mosely is - he moved his private office to Monte Carlo 2 or 3 years ago in order to escape the effects of the European Arrest Warrant system that is now in place. 7.
The title of this topic seems very relevant again, although this time with one person from the FIA in mind in particular, and in a more personal way than I had in mind when I started this last year.
I do hope that the international members of the FIA recognise that certain actions have brought the whole of the FIA into disrepute - car safety, motorsport and anything else.
I do hope that the international members of the FIA recognise that certain actions have brought the whole of the FIA into disrepute - car safety, motorsport and anything else.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff