The facts...McLaren/Ferrrari/FIA

[2priestsferrari]

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__W...

So do you think that McLaren will struggle to enter the 2008 championship? After all how does one prove that ideas were yours alone if they are similar to anything Ferrari has?

Edited by 2priestsferrari on Tuesday 18th September 12:24

[2priestsferrari]

10 Pence Short said:

Have you been away?

Yeah sorry - I know what you mean!!

[2priestsferrari]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Does this mean that Ferrari get a vey good look at the 2008 Mclaren without and repercussions if they happen to 'borrow' some good ideas?

No it means the FIA do...

[2priestsferrari]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

2priestsferrari said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

Does this mean that Ferrari get a vey good look at the 2008 Mclaren without and repercussions if they happen to 'borrow' some good ideas?

No it means the FIA do...

What Ferrari International Assistance or a different FIA?

Whilst I think it is the current fashion to bash Ferrari, FIA and Alonso right now - what McLaren did was a disgrace and there is no way to deal with them any differently.

[2priestsferrari]

Fidgits said:

and i cant help but think someone with Ferrari in their username is likely to be as biased towards them as the FIA!

No not at all, look at the profile and its just a cannonball ref..

[2priestsferrari]

Marki said:

2priestsferrari said:

Whilst I think it is the current fashion to bash Ferrari, FIA and Alonso right now - what McLaren did was a disgrace and there is no way to deal with them any differently.

Oh come off it , as soon as a part is fitted on a car in the pit lane they are all photoing it furiously and trying to work out what it does ,its part of the game

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

If you can't see that then I'm not going to try and make you. Its like trying to convince me that the sky is green..

[2priestsferrari]

rude-boy said:

2priestsferrari said:

Whilst I think it is the current fashion to bash Ferrari, FIA and Alonso right now - what McLaren did was a disgrace and there is no way to deal with them any differently.

Let’s be fair here. What it would appear 3 employees of Maclaren did is what has brought us to this point.

I would suggest that PdelaR and Mr C were think as thieves with this over the last year or so. They were the only two who knew about this as they knew that if RD found out they would be out on their arses. Keep it QT and just make knowing nods and comments in the right times and places to throw the others off the scent and they will look like one of the best designers and test drivers in the paddock.

PdelaR had his nose put about 8foot out of joint when Our Lewis ™ got the nod ahead of him. Best way to prove RD made the wrong choice was to share this source, with Mr C’s knowledge, (who’s views on the driver selection are unknown to me) with his fellow countryman. Alonso gains an edge on Our Lewis ™ and if Our Lewis ™ had failed to shine who do you think would be next in line to the seat mid season?

That RD went to the FIA after the original hearing with the information that hung them only goes to show in even more relief his immense integrity IMO.

That he has ended up stuck with Alonso is a shame to say the least. In my company all 3 would have had their P45’s on the desk before the sun had set.

Ultimately the company is responsible for its employees - without which you could set them off on illegal errands and when they get caught just deny everything and claim they were acting on their own.

Sadly McLaren had to be held to account. This has nothing to do with the drivers but with the engineering side of McLaren and sadly they got caught.

The drivers title is a 3-way fight between Kimi, Lewis and Alonso. Now I don't care who wins but lets hope its fair and the best guy wins. What is amazing is that Alonso moves and Lewis loses out in Spa everyone moans foul play. But after Lewis's start in Monza shows he has no loyalities to anyone.

[2priestsferrari]

jacobyte said:

2priestsferrari said:

The facts...

2priestsferrari said:

what McLaren did was a disgrace and there is no way to deal with them any differently.

If you actually read points 8.4 and 8.5 of that document, you will see how incomprehensibly unfair the whole thing was.

Essentially they are saying "We have no evidence against McLaren, but we don't actually need any evidence. In fact, McLaren don't even need to have done anything wrong at all, so as we are above the law, we can do what we like."

Given your post all it shows is you like to take things out of context!

What the FIA are saying is that they don't need to prove that (as example) McLaren used a Ferrari front wing design and proved a performance advantage - because what the FIA are saying is that merely knowing and trying something which perhaps they can use in the design of there own stuff or perhaps it didn't work so that short cuts a process is enough. Plus with the simulator at McLaren being very accurate who knows what they have tried??

[2priestsferrari]

rude-boy said:

2priestsferrari said:

Sadly McLaren had to be held to account. This has nothing to do with the drivers but with the engineering side of McLaren and sadly they got caught.

I have sympathy with much of the rest of your post but when the finger can only be pointed at two drivers (one of who is the long term test driver and the other has gone on record as saying his input has been the basis of 0.6seconds per lap and one designer you can't really divorce their guilt.

Sure but sadly in order to get the information the FIA have given immunity for the drivers and so nothing can be done later and as I said before if you only deal with the individual then you don't deter teams taking dodgy info in the future.

[2priestsferrari]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

2priestsferrari said:

Ultimately the company is responsible for its employees - without which you could set them off on illegal errands and when they get caught just deny everything and claim they were acting on their own.

I thought that Stepney was one of ferraris employees??? So how come they are not accountable for his actions?

Well they are but it was Ferrari making the complaint and I'm sure he will be dealt with in Italy in due course.

What would you expect to happen? Ferrari docked all their points for giving their technical stuff to McLaren?

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

Depends on what that person was engaged with. If for instance a team paid an FIA official for items that he would get in his duty then it would be as bad.

If a team paid an employee of a rival team then it would be as bad - possibly worse because there was a kind of malice afore thought..

However if that person was no longer employed...

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

Depends on what that person was engaged with. If for instance a team paid an FIA official for items that he would get in his duty then it would be as bad.

If a team paid an employee of a rival team then it would be as bad - possibly worse because there was a kind of malice afore thought..

However if that person was no longer employed...

So it's okay for Ferrari to use whatever information that Nicholas Tombazis brought with him from McLaren, and it's okay for Red Bull to use whatever information Adrian Newey and Peter Prodromou brought with them from McLaren?

Of course because they had left the employ of their respective teams and they have old knowledge. That is for the employeer to have a contract that excludes them from working - just like in many industries...

[2priestsferrari]

Not at all. If you can't see that the FIA came down hard on McLaren to stop the spread of this kind of thing to others then what more is to say!

Flemke then goes on to try and align it to the employment of ex-engineers but of course it is totally different.

If this isn't industrial spying (can't spell espionage!) then please explain what is..

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Not at all. If you can't see that the FIA came down hard on McLaren to stop the spread of this kind of thing to others then what more is to say!

Flemke then goes on to try and align it to the employment of ex-engineers but of course it is totally different.

If this isn't industrial spying (can't spell espionage!) then please explain what is..

It's totally different because:

- when the information left Ferrari, it was because one of their employees gave it away to another team, but,
- when the information left McLaren, it was because their competitors paid money to attract McLaren people and the inside McLaren knowledge that they could bring with them.

So it's wrong to accept something that's volunteered to you for no quid pro quo, but fine to pay someone to bring (a lot more of) it to you?


You spelled "espionage" fine.
The FIA have fallen very far short of having proved anything. As jacobyte points out, the FIA have admitted that their "evidence" is very incomplete, and their standard of proof far below that of a proper court.
In contrast, we do know that earlier this year two guys were convicted by a proper court, and given prison sentences, for having secured and abused confidential Ferrari information whilst they were Toyota employees.
That would be industrial espionage, and if anyone is wondering whether Mosley has a double standard, he need look no further than at the fact that Toyota suffered no penalty whatsoever for the criminal acts of those employees, whilst McLaren, which had a fraction as much culpability, were crucified for acts that appear to have been entirely immaterial to the season's results.

I'm sorry but you are missing the fact that the F1 title is an FIA formula. So that is that, you sign up to it then you sign up to the rules of it - as they make them, like them or not.

Its like all those English football Premiere teams have to wear the little logos on the shirts, etc. Because those are the commercial undertakings of being in that league.

So on the basis that the FIA can do whatever is in there right within the context of the championship if Ferrari moan more than others then so be it. If McLaren have been wronged in some way or Toyota (whatever) then let them put the case to the FIA.

However on the matter of employees leaving one organisation and joining another is completely different and one that as you have pointed out can be taken to a proper court of law and secondly can be in some way controlled by the original employers contract.

As you said the FIA took no action against Toyota yet you kind of imply that the FIA have some kind of loyalty to Ferrari and all other must suffer; well by your own words that doesn't stack up.

As for being prosecuted in a proper court - I think you'll find that this is a matter of time before NS and MC are brought before a court.

[2priestsferrari]

Leithen agree entirely. There is a great deal of emotive comments with this but the bottom line is that the assumption has to be that the FIA have to assume that the McLaren team are exactly that - they are a team and so will stand and fall together.

It is entirely possible that one or two individuals held Ferrari data and didn't share, but it is known that at least 2 drivers did and this information only came out after immunity was granted.

Are we really to believe that these were the only ones that knew?

Then the constant complaints about how the FIA dealt with other matters is irrelevant in this instance and actually had Ferrari not pushed this matter then there would have been little action here too.

Ultimately McLaren do have a right to appeal and one must assume that if they choose not to pursue this right of appeal they accept their punishment.

On the legal side of things as you well know there is a difference in the burden of proof with criminal and civil proceedings - one is the balance of probabilities the other beyond reasonable doubt.

As for Coughlan and Stepney in the eyes of the FIA they are representatives of their teams and the FIA has dealt with the teams accordingly.

Which lets face it is no different to the outside world - after all when the Exxon Valdez hit a reef in Alaska because its captain was drunk did the world simply walk away from Exxon???

Well the captain was convicted in a court of law for negligence but still Exxon was still made to pay for the clean up operation and actually the legal case is still on going! Exxon was fined at one point over 5 billion US dollars - reduced recently to 2 billion.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that Exxon bore responsibility for the accident because the company "put a drunk in charge of a tanker in Prince William Sound.

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

If one went to the regulator, all they would have to do is to reply, "You are wrong. We've checked it, and it's legal." What would you do then?

McLaren don't seem to share your view that they are so down trodden because I don't hear so much complaining from them and perhaps they might have left the sport by now had they been such a victim.

Instead they have competed in the championship since 1966, won 155 races with a heathly turnover and more than a thousand staff. So perhaps they haven't done so badly out of Formula one?

[2priestsferrari]

jacobyte said:

2priestsferrari said:

As for Coughlan and Stepney in the eyes of the FIA they are representatives of their teams and the FIA has dealt with the teams accordingly.

Can you point me to Ferrari's punishment in relation to Stepney? I can't find it anywhere. After all, just like your analogy to the captain of the Exxon ship, he was a rogue employee of the company.

Have McLaren complained about Stepney or Ferrari?? Only as I seem to remember this it was Ferrari complaints to the FIA which started this....

[2priestsferrari]

Flemke - firstly I absolutely agree that the important thing is to get back to racing.

On the Schmacher/Fezza thing. The FIA stripped the driver of his points and that was that. Just as in the McLaren case the drivers are still able to fight for the title. This is logical given the drivers and constructors titles. So driver issues can be dealt with and team issues can be dealt with.

The crime of association is a good point BUT at what point does that loose credibility? I mean there are a number of key issues that would have flagged up something within the management of the team - unless that is McLaren is a bunch of loosey managed cannons...

They are :-
1) the flex floor and flex wing of Ferrari.
2) the Ferrari brake system
3) the gas used in Ferrari tyres
4) the weight distributon of the Ferrari
5) the aero balance of the Ferrari
6) the Ferrari stratagy at Oz GP.

Now are you telling me that all of a sudden when people come out with these random comments nobody in the drivers or managers briefing says "Hey where did this come from?"

If you suddenly came to Manthey and said "hey I'd like to try XYZ on my Porsche cup car" do you not think that your engineer would ask why before saying maybe/yes/no???

Especially when at that level drivers do the driving and engineers do the engineering.

So it isn't correct to say that everyone was innocent. OK maybe nothing worked on the car, maybe they didn't try everything, maybe they didn't see everything BUT firstly it could give them a direction of engineering and secondly nobody said "STOP this isn't correct" until the whistle was blown.

In the Tour de France riders who dope screw the team the UCI do not simply say OK this is a matter for the rider and the trainer.. Its the same deal here.

On the Toyota history I don't care what was the situation there. Its like saying every court case will get the same sentance - it doesn't.

Right or wrongly. End of the day McLaren didn't do the right thing until the last moment. That isn't sport.

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

Can you say specifically what McLaren the team did that justified this draconian punishment?
I do mean "specifically", not, "they cheated".

What do you define as "team"? If you mean a group of people operating under the same banner then they held a great body of IP that belonged to a rival team.

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

flemke said:

Can you say specifically what McLaren the team did that justified this draconian punishment?
I do mean "specifically", not, "they cheated".

What do you define as "team"? If you mean a group of people operating under the same banner then they held a great body of IP that belonged to a rival team.

WRT this and to your previous answer, which I appreciated, would you say that if team A were to hire Joe Bloggs from team B, Joe should always recuse himself from making a suggestion to his new employer if it was derived from what he had learned at the previous team? He's got a lot of IP in his head, and probably some in written form if not in electronic form. Where does the obligation end? IP is property, isn't it?
Joe Bloggs would not be allowed to take with him team B's jigs, for example, even if he had made them himself, so why should he be allowed to take highly valuable IP?

As are we all, I'm very much looking forward to reading the FIA transcripts tomorrow.
On the one hand, one presumes that they won't contain much of substance, because one would expect Mosley, when he was writing out the verdict, to have made the best possible argument to justify it. That is, after all, the job of the barrister - to make the best case out of the facts, by selectively presenting them, attempting to make connections between them, and drawing conclusions no matter how strained, all for the sake of one side of the debate. So he must have fired his best shot already.
On the other hand, what is presented in the verdict is pretty flimsy, and very far from conclusive.


I do want to reiterate one thing that I said above, about Toyota. When the regulator sets a precedent in its treatment of one team, it is ethically obliged to follow that precedent in its treatment of other teams.
That is simple fairness. If a regulator cannot practice that, it cannot be credible.

Agree absolutely with your last para - but then the credibility of the FIA isn't on trial here, because as we all know what is anyone going to do? Start a rival F1 series?....been there not done that. Pull out? Nah what and kill a good earner. But then we are getting cynical!

FIA transcript I guess will be like one of those government docs with all the good bits blanked out for the purposes of secrecy!

On the point about IP. I see the frustration and yes it is a tough one BUT this case isn't about this point. These people were employeed and actually as I know no money changed hands.

If you want to protect your IP then you kind of have an idea as to its life and attempt to make contracts appropriately. After all McLaren put Newey on the side for a time - surely this was for that very reason??