Spygate revisited
Discussion
So Stepney finally speaks about spygate http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/stepney-re...
Interesting little spin on the story - if what he claims is true and he hadn't seen most of the material that Coughlan had - who did ? or did he not actually have it ?
He is not innocent but it doesn't see as simple as was made out back then.
Interesting little spin on the story - if what he claims is true and he hadn't seen most of the material that Coughlan had - who did ? or did he not actually have it ?
He is not innocent but it doesn't see as simple as was made out back then.
Thee are two things here. One is the movable floor and such which Stepney suggests was whistle blowing. Maybe it was.
The second is Spygate/Stepneygate which in essence was him and Coughlan going up and down the pitlane looking for teams to take them in. He had taken information from Ferrari, and the assumption of many was that Coughlan had taken information from McLaren and this came as a package.
A year or so earlier, perhaps 2006? Mackereth (spl?) did more or less the same by downloading information, none of which was any responsibility of his, and then joined Renault, then well-known for their probity. It was given, according to undenied reports, to at least ten of the Renault engineers. This was a scale up, and a considerable one, from what was proven again McL.
The Renault sort of thing has been going on for years.
Santini and another (any help with the name?) downloaded info from Ferrari and gave it to Toyota Motorsport. They were found guilty and punished, not sure of the penalty.
Stepneygate has to be something different as, on the later admission of Mosley, the boss of McLaren knew nothing about the information that Coughlan was aware of. Two of the drivers, P. de la Rosa and Alonso, had sight of the information as did their engineers but the information did not soak through to the McLaren team beyond them.
What did happen was that Coughlan, supplied by information from Stepney, came up with innovative ideas for, it is reported, new braking systems. Something similar did find its way onto the McLaren car although not in the form it was on the Ferrari. It seems it was just the idea of if. The Ferrari maintained aerodynamic balance under braking better than the McL and this is what his 'idea' was. Coughlan could have cut corners in the engineering because he knew what worked and what Ferrari had rejected.
In short, both Ferrari and McLaren were damaged by Stepney and Coughlan. Stepney is now suggesting that the movable floor and wing, against the rules of the sport, were mentioned to Coughlan and the McL team gave the info to the FIA without any intent of using it themselves and not even doing the most obvious thing (and let's face it, what some other teams, especially those that race with a red car would have done) and protest the previous races.
That said, it was probable, given the situation at the time, that the result would have been the same.
The suggestion that McL systematically used Ferrari technical information at all levels was proved incorrect by the FIA's own investigation. One wonders at the motive for the $100,000,000 penalty, especially given that Renault's actions were far, far worse in many, most, all but one person's eyes.
So all this report does is suggest that Stepney's motives for putting Ferrari away with the floor and stuff were pure. I would suggest that his subsequent actions, not mentioned by him, might suggest otherwise.
It was a nasty time in the sport, although the worst offender was not in team colours, although perhaps should have been.
The second is Spygate/Stepneygate which in essence was him and Coughlan going up and down the pitlane looking for teams to take them in. He had taken information from Ferrari, and the assumption of many was that Coughlan had taken information from McLaren and this came as a package.
A year or so earlier, perhaps 2006? Mackereth (spl?) did more or less the same by downloading information, none of which was any responsibility of his, and then joined Renault, then well-known for their probity. It was given, according to undenied reports, to at least ten of the Renault engineers. This was a scale up, and a considerable one, from what was proven again McL.
The Renault sort of thing has been going on for years.
Santini and another (any help with the name?) downloaded info from Ferrari and gave it to Toyota Motorsport. They were found guilty and punished, not sure of the penalty.
Stepneygate has to be something different as, on the later admission of Mosley, the boss of McLaren knew nothing about the information that Coughlan was aware of. Two of the drivers, P. de la Rosa and Alonso, had sight of the information as did their engineers but the information did not soak through to the McLaren team beyond them.
What did happen was that Coughlan, supplied by information from Stepney, came up with innovative ideas for, it is reported, new braking systems. Something similar did find its way onto the McLaren car although not in the form it was on the Ferrari. It seems it was just the idea of if. The Ferrari maintained aerodynamic balance under braking better than the McL and this is what his 'idea' was. Coughlan could have cut corners in the engineering because he knew what worked and what Ferrari had rejected.
In short, both Ferrari and McLaren were damaged by Stepney and Coughlan. Stepney is now suggesting that the movable floor and wing, against the rules of the sport, were mentioned to Coughlan and the McL team gave the info to the FIA without any intent of using it themselves and not even doing the most obvious thing (and let's face it, what some other teams, especially those that race with a red car would have done) and protest the previous races.
That said, it was probable, given the situation at the time, that the result would have been the same.
The suggestion that McL systematically used Ferrari technical information at all levels was proved incorrect by the FIA's own investigation. One wonders at the motive for the $100,000,000 penalty, especially given that Renault's actions were far, far worse in many, most, all but one person's eyes.
So all this report does is suggest that Stepney's motives for putting Ferrari away with the floor and stuff were pure. I would suggest that his subsequent actions, not mentioned by him, might suggest otherwise.
It was a nasty time in the sport, although the worst offender was not in team colours, although perhaps should have been.
ash73 said:
Do you really believe that?
Very interesting post, btw.
If you have a look at the results of the enquiry as reported by the FIA there was just one main bit of info that could be related to the Ferrari design. Even then it was not a direct copy, although from what I understand a direct copy would have been useless. This was, as many suggest, the braking system, it keeping aero more stable when the brakes were applied. This was redacted in the report (along with a much more minor bit of convergence) but, it would seem, most people agree that it was the brakes.Very interesting post, btw.
The info used by Alonso to an extent and PdlR to a greater degree was on setup and both suggest that it gave them no advantages. There is a suggesting that the setup info of the Ferrari would have been very useful as regards to tactical planning for a race to defeat the Ferrari but there was nothing to show that it had been used. Indeed, weather changes would have made such info useless in any case, but that would not have made possession any less culpable. However, one has to wonder how far up the ladder it went.
The info would have had no advantage to the design team, which is what the FIA enquiry focused on.
The info given to the two drivers did not filter through to Hamilton nor his engineers.
The FIA were very precious on the enquiry. The 'Whitmarsh' - almost certainly written by lawyers - reply to the findings of the FIA enquiry rejects almost all the points of the enquiry although admits to the bit about the brakes, and the more minor bit. However, the info was not direct it would appear. If it was then there would have been some form of 'paper' trail and despite the FIA looking through dozens of computers of McL, the info impossible to hide, the FIA found no such paper trail.
The findings of the FIA report teams with words and phrases like, seems to the WMSC, he [Coughlan] is likely, seems most unlikely, and so on and so forth. The fact that the FIA found no such information despite McLaren's cooperation would, in any legal setting, be a blockage to a finding of guilt.
Further, Mosley is dismissive - even to the extent of calling Dennis a liar - of the fact that much worse was done to McLaren by one of its own employees and the information was used by Renault. This was 100x as culpable yet Mosley, for whatever reasons, seemed to suggest it wasn't.
Quite apart from any unfairness, the way the whole enquiry was handled and publicised brought a great deal of harm to the sport. Brought it into disrepute (151), and much more so than the actions of the two rogue employees, Coughlan and Stepney, who were, all reports suggest, working together for their own aims.
Some suggest this is what brought Mosley's downfall. Had the situation been handled better it is probable that he would still be the head of the FIA.
Dig out the Whitmarsh reply to the findings. I showed it to a friend of mine who is a corporation lawyer. She was impressed. It tears great holes in the findings of the FIA.
There's a lot we haven't been told about it of course, but the circumstances of the enquiry are quite clear:
Stepney took information from Ferrari and shared the information with Coughlan. Stepney and Coughlan went looking for a new team, the assumption, which is reasonable in the circs, is that the data was a bit of a sweetener. Coughlan gave information on set-up to Alonso and PdlR which they tested in the wind tunnel which proved of no value over the useful fact that it showed them it was useless, if you see what I mean.
It seems probable that the information which Coughlan had he used to improve the braking system of the McL car. It is almost certain that Dennis would not have known of the 'inspiration' of the design modifications.
Hamilton was not supplied with any setup information. Remember this was at a time when Hamilton and Alonso were not on friendly terms and also Alonso was not speaking with Dennis, even to share Ferrari data.
The amount of info McL had from the Ferrari data was small. If it had taken a lot then its use as a sweetener would have been affected.
Renault used masses of info about the McL design in its engineering.
The FIA, despite considerable efforts and free use of the McL computers found no incriminating evidence of direct use of the Ferrari data.
Alonso and PdlR, the only two major players apart from Stepney and Coughlan who used any information, were not punished, apart from Alonso losing his seat in MvL of course.
One last bit:
The finding of the copy of the information in a conveniently located photocopying shop was serendipitous indeed. That was never investigated.
The FIA were informed of the conspiracy with Coughlan and Alonso by Dennis.
Everyone pushes boundaries in the sport. I don't think Dennis lied about his involvement though.
Dennis trusted Coughlan in the same way that Ferrari trusted Stepney.
The FIA did nothing about the taking of McL data by Renault nor did they do anything about Toyota Motorsport taking Ferrari data. No one has ever explained why this is.
One must wonder why the FIA threatened Brundle, trying to silence him. Again, many felt this was bringing the sport into disrepute.
This wiki page is a reasonable refresher for anyone who might be mis-remembering some of the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espi...
jamieboy said:
This wiki page is a reasonable refresher for anyone who might be mis-remembering some of the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espi...
It's OK as a timeline but it lacks any interpretation and it continues with myths created by newspapers.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espi...
A more educated view is expressed by Lawrence. It has to be accepted that he was no apologist for Mozzy, but then so few of those who seem aware of what went on his his time are::
http://www.pitpass.com/public/article.php?fes_art_...
Wikki suggests that the 'Whitmarsh Letter' was, according to one paper, 'by any standards a groveling apology' but in was, in fact, a challenge to the findings, to the limit of what McL could get away with. It should be remembered that Mozzy was threatening that McL would have to redesign their car from February 2008, in practice excluding them from having a competitive car for the season. McL responded with a great deal of bottle and demonstrated that they felt they were hard done by. A lawyer read the Whitmarsh letter and suggested she would use it when teaching law. She was impressed. She said she actually laughed at times, but that's lawyers for you.
There is little doubt that Coughlan and Stepney were working together for their own purposes. There was no apparent intent of Coughlan's part to water down their assets by giving it away to anyone without getting something back. The suggestion that he was going through the data in order to somehow help McL, as the FIA seemed to suggest, is farcical. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. None. And the Whitmarsh letter points this out clearly.
It is best not to try and remember details in a case like this. It is best to keep information to hand and refer to it. It is best not to depend on Wikki for anything other than an overview, and one not to be depended upon without checking.
If you keep information to hand you can pull up the start of the groveling apology:
“. . . [McLaren International] do not agree with all of the conclusions that have been drawn following this most impressively thorough and daunting investigation into the engineering processes of McLaren Racing,”
The term thorough and daunting investigation is the crux of the matter. The letter then goes on to list the minor matters it missed in its investigation.
The letter is many things, a classic of its kind I've been told, but it is no apology. It is, at the very least, a justification.
There was one bit which was rather clever. McL had completed their own investigation and had come up with a clean bill of health for their cars. The FIA then investigated and McL commented that:
" . . . the investigating team interviewed 20 key engineers, accessed 22 personal computers belonging to key members of the organisation and retrieved by computer search 1.4 Tera Bytes of data stored on the central computer systems of McLaren Racing (this latter data is equivalent to approximately 75 million sheets of A4 typed information).”
and then goes on to point out that they found nothing concrete.
Mozzy suggested that Dennis lied although there was no evidence to support this despite the paragraph above. He later retracted this accusation.
No outside a few in the know can say what actually went on. What can be said is that the Renault case was much worse than that of the McL one. 15 engineers at least used the data. One has to draw one's own conclusions as to why Mozzy felt that it was better not to chase them and instead go all out after McL.
What Stepney is talking about in his revisionist statement is not Spygate, in essence the collusion between him and Coughlan, but him trying, for whatever reason, to harm Ferrari.
jamieboy said:
Sure, I was just throwing it out there in case anyone was at risk of confusing "interpretation" with old-fashioned "fact".
But no misremembering on my behalf. Everything I have said I can reference. The Wikki entry is nothing more that a sketchy overview. Good timeline but little else.The problem is that it is easy to interpret what Wikki states as fact when, of course, it is not. It is a précis, and carries little detail.
The fact (no quotes needed) is that McL said: Toward that end [a conclusion of the enquiry] we would like to express our willingness, despite not agreeing with the [FIA court] findings . . .
How much clearer do you need to have a dependable interpretation?
They go on to say that they have studied the whole of the matter 'critically' and come to the conclusion that they should have contacted Todt as soon as they were aware of the whistleblowing information.
That bit is the only real apology, and even that was conditional.
It is said as if any team would have done so in the circs. Todt's team were cheating. If they had told Todt they would have put Stepney away for doing the 'decent thing', that is if we accept what he said in the OP's link.
But they add the rider that the only reason they should have done so was that 'these matters' could have been avoided. In other words - an interpretation of course, but in fact there is no other way to read it - all the $100,000,000 fine was about was Todt being found out for cheating by McLaren via one of their own disgruntled employees. Everything else was fluff.
And Stepney, in this article, gives his justification for doing so. I'm not sure I agree with much of what he said, but that's just opinion.
If you think I'm wrong in any of this then by all means pick a point, or two, and we can discuss it without insinuendo of 'misremembering'. But please, don't use Wikki as fact. That's just silly.
Derek Smith said:
If you think I'm wrong in any of this then by all means pick a point, or two, and we can discuss it without insinuendo of 'misremembering'. But please, don't use Wikki as fact. That's just silly.
I don't think anyone thinks you are wrong about the facts of the Stepny/Coughlan case here.I think JamieBoy posted the link to the wiki when we were discussing the "mysterious powder", and someone popped up with an unrelated (possibly misremembered) incident at Vick Lee motorsport, where he'd been smuggling cocaine around inside racing cars. He was simply offering the wiki as a reminder of the facts of the Stepney/Coughlan case as opposed to the totally unrelated Vick Lee smuggling thing. The only similarity between the two are the words "white powder".
Derek Smith said:
But no misremembering on my behalf. Everything I have said I can reference. The Wikki entry is nothing more that a sketchy overview. Good timeline but little else.
I wasn't claiming that you were misremembering anything. If I'm honest, I skim-read your posts, but I'm certain they were as balanced and as unbiased as your posts on this subject always are. 
But someone else said that they found your post interesting, so I thought they might be equally interested in the wiki page with its timeline, its 49 cited references, and its relatively objective commentary.I apologisen. In my defence, it is easy to misread the intent of a post.
I used to run a website fanzine and followed the Stepneygate fiasco closely. I had a series of pages, each page heading a jackboot crushing the F1 logo. It generated the most hits of all my pages, even the race commentary. I got considerable comment as well, and many supplied links, some of which were quite revealing and often they disappeared overnight. It was clear that someone, someone who was mentioned a lot, had organised a trawl of the internet.
I once had a 'spike' over a few hours, twice as many unique hits than normal, and was a little bit wary of being the next to be threatened. (My post race hit rate was 900 or so, never quite got the thousand in one day.) So I kept all links (hence the Mike Lawrence one from 2007). The spike came just after the FIA went for Brundle's column in The Times, in reality an innocuous phrase, one in common usage, which obviously hit a tender spot of Mozzy's. And we all know there must be a few of them. I was somewhat critical of the threat.
I was ill in 2007/8 and spent considerable time trawling the net for info. I don't watch TV much.
So I'm sorry for my reaction. This is a real apology and not like the 'Whitmarsh' letter which was as sincere as a Labour spin doctor, to more or less quote a phrase I used at the time.
I reckon we know, at best, just a few percent of what actually went on. I think it started the downfall of Mozzy, the NotW expose of his sexual predilection for beating women, although not in a Nazi-themed way of course, was a final straw.
I'm a big Mclaren fan - the sub-heading of my fanzine was 'A Ferrari-sycophant-free zone', the hyphens generating much comment as well - and am obviously biased, so took extra care to ensure I got things right. My lawyer friend got one of her pupils to write a commentary on the Whitmarsh letter. He knew nothing about F1 evidently, but that, according to my F1 nerd lawyer friend, helped if anything.
I used to run a website fanzine and followed the Stepneygate fiasco closely. I had a series of pages, each page heading a jackboot crushing the F1 logo. It generated the most hits of all my pages, even the race commentary. I got considerable comment as well, and many supplied links, some of which were quite revealing and often they disappeared overnight. It was clear that someone, someone who was mentioned a lot, had organised a trawl of the internet.
I once had a 'spike' over a few hours, twice as many unique hits than normal, and was a little bit wary of being the next to be threatened. (My post race hit rate was 900 or so, never quite got the thousand in one day.) So I kept all links (hence the Mike Lawrence one from 2007). The spike came just after the FIA went for Brundle's column in The Times, in reality an innocuous phrase, one in common usage, which obviously hit a tender spot of Mozzy's. And we all know there must be a few of them. I was somewhat critical of the threat.
I was ill in 2007/8 and spent considerable time trawling the net for info. I don't watch TV much.
So I'm sorry for my reaction. This is a real apology and not like the 'Whitmarsh' letter which was as sincere as a Labour spin doctor, to more or less quote a phrase I used at the time.
I reckon we know, at best, just a few percent of what actually went on. I think it started the downfall of Mozzy, the NotW expose of his sexual predilection for beating women, although not in a Nazi-themed way of course, was a final straw.
I'm a big Mclaren fan - the sub-heading of my fanzine was 'A Ferrari-sycophant-free zone', the hyphens generating much comment as well - and am obviously biased, so took extra care to ensure I got things right. My lawyer friend got one of her pupils to write a commentary on the Whitmarsh letter. He knew nothing about F1 evidently, but that, according to my F1 nerd lawyer friend, helped if anything.
Was just discussing the whole spygate thing with a pal the other day. I wasn't really paying that much attention to F1 around that period, but never really got the massive penalty for Mac, seemed just mentally OTT £100 mill & loss of all championship points- which were surely worth more than the £100m?
These were the FIA= Ferrari International Assistance, years tho were they not?
Wonder of the real truth of it all & the seemingly excessively harsh penalty will ever come out?
Wonder quite how richly rewarded the copyshop guy got rewarded by Ferrari? or has Ron had him bumped off yet?
These were the FIA= Ferrari International Assistance, years tho were they not?
Wonder of the real truth of it all & the seemingly excessively harsh penalty will ever come out?
Wonder quite how richly rewarded the copyshop guy got rewarded by Ferrari? or has Ron had him bumped off yet?
Edited by iguana on Tuesday 12th November 23:28
ash73 said:
Derek Smith said:
The amount of info McL had from the Ferrari data was small.
I think that's extremely unlikely, the distribution of secret information is hardly going to be documented with an audit trail; so there is likely a big difference between what happened and what can be proved.007 VXR said:
ash73 said:
Derek Smith said:
The amount of info McL had from the Ferrari data was small.
I think that's extremely unlikely, the distribution of secret information is hardly going to be documented with an audit trail; so there is likely a big difference between what happened and what can be proved.Fairly well known example: Weapons of Mass Destruction/Iraq --> Not Found. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.i...
ash73 said:
I think that's extremely unlikely, the distribution of secret information is hardly going to be documented with an audit trail; so there is likely a big difference between what happened and what can be proved.
The FIA was given full access to any computer, and any staff member, in the McL compound. If the information was was put on any system it would be virtually impossible to eradicate the footsteps. Deleting it would leave a big trail.The one thing where there was some convergence, the braking system, probably did originate from Ferrari, but not in the sense of a direct copy. This would be impossible to use in any case. The cars were very different.
What was probably the source was Coughlan. He has sight of the Ferrari system of anti-dive (not its real name of course, just something that it did) under braking, keeping some of the aero in place. Goughlan was aware of the Ferrari solution and put systems in place to design McL's own. However, the Ferrari system was 'known' by others in the pitlane so it seems likely that McL were aware of it so the advantage was knowing of a system that worked.
The documents were in Coughlan's hands but not for any other reason, it would appear, than his and Stepney's use. They approached Honda with a proposition, which, one would assume, would have included the data. Remember that a McL employee had gone to Renault with considerably more information than Stepney had and this was well known along the pitlane so what they were doing was hardly unusual. It was unlikely in the extreme that they would have given the technical info to McL as this would have watered down their advantage.
The info that did come through was to Alonso and PdlR, but this was for set-up only and proved of no use to them because of the different cars. (Not that that lessens their culpability of course, just McL's benefit from the ifo.) It is highly improbable that Alonso would have discussed it with, for instance, Dennis as the two were not talking at that time.
Whether the story of Alonso blackmailing Dennis is true or not is unknown. What is agreed though is that when the fact that he/they were getting set-up info, Dennis informed the FIA immediately. Whether or not this was generated by honesty or not is also unknown. What is true is that once he'd been told 'officially' Dennis really had no other option. Alonso is said to have returned within a few minutes to withdraw the threat but Dennis could not be 'untold' so to speak.
There was no evidence of improper behaviour by Dennis. The worst allegation that could be proved against him was dreadful man management of Coughlan, one of his senior men. But if that was culpable then Ferrari were much, much worse with regards Stepney.
But what can team managers do but trust their key staff?
Dennis is passionate about F1 and totally dedicated to McLaren. We must remember that at that time there were 'suggestions' of a certain bias towards Ferrari from the FIA and it must have been very tempting to 'even things up'. That said, there is no evidence that he did.
By suggesting that Dennis did know about the info and collude with Coughlan, Mozzy is saying more about his own moral views than those of Dennis.
But I have to say that I know nothing about the circumstances of Stepneygate other than what has been printed and this is available to everyone. However, what is true is that the FIA found no evidence of corruption of McL files by the Ferrari data and the braking system was not Ferrari based, merely the principles were the same. That said, even McL agreed that it was likely to have come, to a limited extent, via Coughlan who had sight of the Ferrari data.
The report of the FIA investigation is full of seems, guesses and probables. The 'Whitmarsh' response is a rejection of the findings and more or less a challenge to the FIA, or Mozzy, with the threat probably that McL would take the matter further. The letter states that they were resigned to establishing better relations with Ferrari and the FIA. The implication was that if the FIA did not accept their refutation of the majority of findings, and all the most critical ones, they would have no option but to stir things up. They must have had a Plan B and it was one that Mozzy would have probably had extreme difficulties with, especially as his authority was under threat at the time.
If you compare how the two team leaders came out of the fiasco, you have to say that Dennis showed himself to be reasonable and still interested in F1 as a sport. If only the same could have been said about Todt, then there would have been little or no fuss about the two men who betrayed the trust put in them by their teams.
Honda, in refusing the data, might well have done so for reasons of fair play. We don't know.
What is beyond dispute is that the way the whole situation was handled by the FIA caused considerable harm, some of it long term, to the sport as a whole.
When is Stepney's book coming out?
007 VXR said:
If it can't be proved, How can you give them a big fine and loss of points ?
You want to be involved in police discipline. Informal resolution is when the police officer did everything right: no one likes a smart arse.I had to inform a PC the findings after a complaint against him and was surprised to find him surprised as well. He hadn't been informed, as the regs required, of the complaint and obviously had not even been asked what had happened.
Advice, a euphemism for abuse, is when something has gone wrong but the officer had no part of it and can prove it.
Admonish is reserved for a junior officer who followed orders when it all went breasts up.
The procedure was all about Mozzy trying to establish himself as boss. Ecclestone was, by then, perhaps a little distant and without his backing even with Mozzy's conceit, things must have looked a bit dodgy.
iguana said:
Was just discussing the whole spygate thing with a pal the other day. I wasn't really paying that much attention to F1 around that period, but never really got the massive penalty for Mac, seemed just mentally OTT £100 mill & loss of all championship points- which were surely worth more than the £100m?
These were the FIA= Ferrari International Assistance, years tho were they not?
Wonder of the real truth of it all & the seemingly excessively harsh penalty will ever come out?
Wonder quite how richly rewarded the copyshop guy got rewarded by Ferrari? or has Ron had him bumped off yet?
I can't remember the exact way the fine worked, and don't have time at the moment to look it up but the fine of £100m was adjusted to cover the income which would be generated by the points scored so Mclaren only had to pay something just over £50m (if they actually paid anything at all - I say this because there was no evidence of the money being spent where the FIA said it would). In effect McLaren would have earned around £50m that year due to the points they scored in the races as a team, rather than give that to them and take the £100m and then give them £50m they just balanced the money.These were the FIA= Ferrari International Assistance, years tho were they not?
Wonder of the real truth of it all & the seemingly excessively harsh penalty will ever come out?
Wonder quite how richly rewarded the copyshop guy got rewarded by Ferrari? or has Ron had him bumped off yet?
Edited by iguana on Tuesday 12th November 23:28
As an aside, I was pretty appalled to read last week that Mosley has succeeded through a French court in ensuring that Google remove any reference to his non-nazi indiscretions from their search results. As if that will make us forget them. It just makes me frustrated that I did actually throw away the only copy of NOTW that I have ever bought.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff