F1 FIA versus McLaren Fiasco Thread

Formula 1 news, races, teams, drivers, technology, strategy, and discussion.
So someone is suggesting that if you had poor performance in the previous season, you can't win in the following season or else you will be considered cheating? OK it won't happen with Minardi or Spyker, but this is Mclaren, with hundreds of million of dollars to throw in, and remember in 2005 they had a great car, just wasn't reliable enough, last year was a Renault year, but where is Renault now? they cheated and obtained some information from Honda and screwed their car up?

Again, i dont' think whether the MP4-22 benefited from the Ferrari information is the point here.. using a school student example again, if i'm working on a project, and i stole stuff off another group, but found it unuseful and didn't use it, I am still considered cheating right? So i think how Mclaren got the info is the vital key.

I'm sure Ferrari, especially Todt wont' mind winning the championship this way, they obviously want this as the result.
 
Agree for the argument that you can't win if you did not win the precedent year.

For your example, you are sanctioned if you cheated. But if you did not benefit from it your sanction will not be enormous, the more harsh ever in the history of your branch!
 
Alonso implicated in FIA`s verdict
Friday 14th September 2007

Fernando Alonso is implicated in the FIA's findings behind their punishment of McLaren.

Reigning World Champion Fernando Alonso has been fully implicated in the FIA's findings behind their strict sanctions of McLaren in the spy scandal.

McLaren were stripped of all their Constructors' points for this season on Thursday and handed a record fine of 100million US dollars (£49.2million) as punishment.

In their 15-page judgment released on Friday, the FIA have published details of emails exchanged between Alonso and test driver Pedro de la Rosa proving they were in unauthorised possession of highly confidential technical information belonging to Ferrari.

One section of the report reads: "The emails show unequivocally that both Mr Alonso and Mr de la Rosa received confidential Ferrari information via (Mike) Coughlan.

"Both drivers knew that this information was confidential Ferrari information and that both knew that the information was being received by Coughlan from (Nigel) Stepney."

Mike Coughlan was suspended from his position as McLaren chief designer on July 3, the same day Ferrari sacked Stepney as their head of performance development.

It is understood Stepney forwarded a 780-page technical dossier to Coughlan, an accusation the former continues to deny.

But one email exchange between de la Rosa and Alonso dated March 25, 2007, is particularly damning.

It initially relates to the weight distribution of Ferrari's cars as set up for the Australian Grand Prix on March 18.

De la Rosa then pertinently concludes: "All the information from Ferrari is very reliable.

"It comes from Nigel Stepney, their former chief mechanic - I don't know what post he holds now.

"He's the same person who told us in Australia that Kimi (Raikkonen) was stopping on lap 18.

"He's very friendly with Mike Coughlan, our chief designer, and he told him that."



---------------------------



3.2 The FIA therefore wrote to three McLaren drivers (Mr. Alonso, Mr. Hamilton and

Mr. de la Rosa) to establish whether or not this allegation had any basis in fact

and requested that they produce copies of any relevant documents, including any

electronic communications (howsoever conveyed or stored) which may be

relevant to this case and which make reference to Ferrari, Ferrari's employee

Nigel Stepney ("Stepney") or any technical or other information coming from or

connected with either Ferrari or Stepney.

3.3 The McLaren drivers were reminded of their duty as competitors and Super

Licence holders to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of the Formula One World

Championship. Given the importance of establishing the facts and that the

information might not come out any other way, the FIA offered the assurance that

any information made available in response to the letter would not result in any

proceedings against the drivers personally under the International Sporting Code

or the Formula One Regulations. However, the drivers were notified that if it

later came to light that they had withheld any potentially relevant information,

serious consequences could follow.

3.4 All three drivers responded. Mr. Hamilton responded that he had no information

responsive to the FIA's request. Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa both submitted emails

to the FIA which the WMSC finds highly relevant. Subsequently (at

McLaren's request) both Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa made written statements

to the WMSC verifying that these e-mails were sent and received and offering

context and explanations regarding the e-mails. The e-mails show unequivocally

that both Mr. Alonso and Mr. de la Rosa received confidential Ferrari information

via Coughlan; that both drivers knew that this information was confidential

Ferrari information and that both knew that the information was being received by

Coughlan from Stepney.

weight distribution

3.5 On 21 March 2007 at 09.57 Mr. de la Rosa wrote to Coughlan in the following

terms:

"Hi Mike, do you know the Red Car's Weight Distribution? It would be

important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator. Thanks in

advance, Pedro.

p.s. I will be in the simulator tomorrow."

3.6 In his evidence given to the WMSC, Mr. de la Rosa confirmed that Coughlan

replied by text message with precise details of Ferrari's weight distribution.

3.7 On 25 March 2007 at 01.43 Mr. de la Rosa sent an e-mail to Fernando Alonso

which sets out Ferrari's weight distribution to two decimal places on each of

Ferrari's two cars as set up for the Australian Grand Prix.

3.8 Mr. Alonso replied to this e-mail on 25 March 2007 at 12.31 (they were in

different time zones). His e-mail includes a section headed "Ferrari" in which he

says "its weight distribution surprises me; I don't know either if it's 100%

reliable, but at least it draws attention". The e-mail continues with a discussion

of how McLaren's weight distribution compares with Ferrari's.

3.9 Mr. de la Rosa replied on 25 March 2007 13.02 stating the following:

"All the information from Ferrari is very reliable. It comes from Nigel Stepney,

their former chief mechanic - I don't know what post he holds now. He's the

same person who told us in Australia that Kimi was stopping in lap 18. He's very

friendly with Mike Coughlan, our Chief Designer, and he told him that."

3.10 Mr. de la Rosa's e-mail to Coughlan specifically stated that he wished to

receive Ferrari's weight distribution for the purposes of testing it in the

simulator the following day ("It would be important for us to know so that we

could try it in the simulator").

Mr. de la Rosa explained to the WMSC at the meeting of 13

September 2007 that when Coughlan responded with the precise details in

question, he (de la Rosa) decided that the weight distribution was so different

to the McLaren car set up that it would not, in fact, be tested in the

simulator. Mr de la Rosa says that thereafter he regarded the information as

unimportant. It seems highly unlikely to the WMSC that a test driver would

take a decision of this sort on his own. It also is not clear why, if Mr. de la

Rosa regarded this information as unimportant, he would still convey and

discuss it with Mr. Alonso some days later in his e-mail exchange of 25th

March.

Mr. de la Rosa's evidence also makes clear that there was no reluctance or

hesitation about testing the Ferrari information for potential benefit, but only

that on this occasion he says that there was a technical reason not to do so.
 
OK so why shouldn't Ferrari be punished? The term 'plagarism' is a common term used in universities that means cheating, and to my knowledge and the two universities I have been in, they both mean that the 'user' and the 'giver' of information (or work) are both considered to have breached the plagarism rule.. And it does apply, at where I study, some years back a student (student A) copied another student's (student B) essay, who has already graduated with a Law degree, but as soon as the student A handed in a copied version of student B's essay which he wrote 4 years before, student B's qualifaction was actually withdrawn by the university. Student B could not prove that he was unwilling to give his work to student A, and yes, his degree was withdrawn.
Shouldn't the same happen here? What's the difference?

I do believe Ron Dennis knows nothing about this, everyone in Mclaren would know that if Ron knew, he would immediately either shout it out to FIA or tell them to destroy all Ferrari stuff and the team wouldn't benefit from the confidential info, and Coughnan/De Le Rosa and Alonso surely would not want to lose the advantage. Well, that's how I see Ron Dennis at least, you might think he likes to cheat but i don't.

I do agree with the WMSC that Mclaren is found at guilt whether or not they implemented or gained advantage with the Ferrari information, it is impossible to proof, i mean you have the information means you know what the other team has, and that is already an advantage even if it is not used... well, 1 employee screwed them up basically..
 
Wow this spygate is shittier than I thought. No wonder Alonso decided not to show up in Paris yesterday.

I can't believe what I'm reading. I'm very disappointed.
 
Well, now it's crystal clear why the WMSC came to this decision about punishing McLaren. Not surprisingly, more people within McLaren (including the drivers) knew about the Ferrari data. The WMSC made it clear that it does NOT require proof beyond a reasonabld doubt that McLaren benefitted from the data to punish McLaren. They are punishing McLaren because they INFER that a sporting advantage was POSSIBLE. I think car parts are not a big deal, as the McLaren car is still legal, but knowledge of an opponent's pitting strategy is serious and can confer an unfair advantage.

The following quote from Max's letter sums it up for me completely:

"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. "

Essentially, there was no concrete proof that McLaren benefitted from the Ferrari information. Just a lot of emails between drivers and Coughlan about what Ferrari was using on their cars and whether they can try something similar. Event though the McLaren car probably was not changed because of the Ferrari information, it is conceivable that McLaren could have used the knowledge to get a STRATEGIC advantage, knowing how their main competitor's car was setup.
 
I wonder if any mishaps will happen to Alonso's car in the next few races. I think TOUI minimizes its loss if Hamilton wins the WDC.

And why are people pretending that anyone other than the biggest F1 junkies give a hoot about the constructors' titles? Who won the title in 1999? Hakkinen won the WDC. How many remember that Ferrari actually won the WCC in '99.
 
The WMSC made it clear that it does NOT require proof beyond a reasonabld doubt that McLaren benefitted from the data to punish McLaren.

You do not need to prove reasonable doubt in every court case. In criminal court, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an accused criminal committed the crime. In civil court, that same accused criminal must only be proven to be liable for the crime, therefore the standard of proof is much lower.
 
The winner of the constructors gets more cash for the following year so i guess it's a blow if mclaren misses out on that.. MB needs to do something to sell more cars now.. X)

So why isn't Ferrari punished for its employee intentionally giving information to Mclaren? While Mclaren was punished for its employee intentionally receiving information from Ferrari?
 
Personally I think the punishment is fair… not because McLaren cheated but because they got caught cheating. What bugs me is that McLaren are being crucified.

Newsflash, they are all cheaters. Industrial espionage has been part of F1 as it is in any other motorsport. For that reason I want Ferrari to get off their high horse and shut the f*** up at this point.



So why isn't Ferrari punished for its employee intentionally giving information to Mclaren? While Mclaren was punished for its employee intentionally receiving information from Ferrari?

Because Ferrari did not benefit from that action.
 
apparently most other teams (from the previous page or 2) that they find this scandal and punishment ridiculous..
 
I wonder if any mishaps will happen to Alonso's car in the next few races.


Yeah I've seen these bets on other boards/forums also.



I think TOUI minimizes its loss if Hamilton wins the WDC.


So you think Hamilton is that innocent ?!

I can see it... Monday morning, Alonso/De la Rosa arrives to the Woking factory and said the engineers "I had a dream, let's change the <insert here> of the car but, please, only the ones of my car "ssshhhhhh" don't tell nor give this to Lewis"



And why are people pretending that anyone other than the biggest F1 junkies give a hoot about the constructors' titles? Who won the title in 1999? Hakkinen won the WDC. How many remember that Ferrari actually won the WCC in '99.


The Manufacturers (MB), their sponsors. and team fans do.
Teams get money by their position in the WCC, NOT by the position of their drivers in the WDC.
 
apparently most other teams (from the previous page or 2) that they find this scandal and punishment ridiculous..

Yeah I know... it's probably their guilt talking, because they would be in the same shoes if proof against them came out. ;)
 
Just because it's common doesn't justify it.
Thinking about it, McLaren are sort of punished because of Ferrari's bad security.
 
Just because it's common doesn't justify it.
Thinking about it, McLaren are sort of punished because of Ferrari's bad security.

yes.. my question:
So why isn't Ferrari punished for its employee intentionally giving information to Mclaren? While Mclaren was punished for its employee intentionally receiving information from Ferrari?
 
McLaren may not have to pay all $100m

By Alan Baldwin Friday, September 14th 2007, 11:14 GMT

McLaren may ultimately have to pay substantially less than the record $100 million fine imposed on the team in a Formula One spying controversy.

"Firstly, effectively, we will still have as an offset the revenue from the points earned to date. That will effectively half the size of the cheque we have to sign, if we ultimately accept this fine," McLaren boss Ron Dennis told a news conference on Thursday.

"But as you can see if you read our accounts, we turn over roughly $450-500 million USD a year, and we are debt-free, so obviously we are a very strong company with phenomenal growth.

"I jokingly asked [Mercedes motorsport director] Norbert [Haug] if he was going to chip in half, but we haven't really come to a conclusion on that negotiation."

A report by Formula Money, which monitors the sport's financial health, said on Friday a sum of $31 million could be closer to the mark.

The International Automobile Federation said after a hearing in Paris on Thursday that McLaren would lose all their constructors' points for the 2007 season and also incur a $100 million fine for having Ferrari data in their possession.

However, it said in a statement that the sum would be "less the FOM (Formula One Management) income lost as a result of the points deduction."

McLaren are still considering whether to appeal.

The team, 23 points clear of Ferrari after last weekend's Italian Grand Prix with four races remaining, could have expected $68.9 million in prize money for winning the championship, according to Formula Money.

That lost revenue would still be a considerable blow to McLaren, who as well as being one of the most successful teams are also one of the wealthiest and best funded, but one they could absorb better than most.

Paddock insiders estimate that annual budgets in Formula One range from around $50-60 million for the likes of tail-enders Spyker to well in excess of $400 million for the likes of Ferrari, Toyota and McLaren.

The British-based team are debt free, despite spending a significant sum on an award-winning new factory, with Dennis saying at the start of the year they were financially fitter than at any time in their history.

According to Formula Money, McLaren Racing turned over 113.3 million pounds ($228.7 million) in 2005, making a profit after tax of 4.9 million.

As well as being supported by major companies, with Vodafone the title backer and Spanish banking group Santander a leading sponsor, McLaren are 40 percent owned by DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes.

McLaren said in January that Mumtalakat Holding Company, wholy owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain, was taking a 30 percent stake. That leaves Dennis and Saudi partner Mansour Ojjeh with 15 percent each.

McLaren have also struck gold in British rookie Lewis Hamilton, leading the championship in his debut season and as the first black driver in the sport a major asset for sponsors.

With a winning car, McLaren can expect to be back among the leaders next year.

Questions left unanswered by Thursday's hearing concerned the fine, what the FIA would do with it and what would happen to the withheld prize money normally distributed by Bernie Ecclestone's FOM.

It had also yet to be confirmed whether the teams lifted up the championship ranking by McLaren's lack of points would receive a greater share of the prize pot.

The paddock is based on a strict hierarchy, with teams' hospitality units lined up in the order that they finished the previous championship.

That means the most successful enjoy the prime positions of prominence while the tail-enders are cast into the furthest corners. McLaren will be at the bottom of the heap next year.

"It will be interesting to see how they fit their transporter into the far end of the paddock next year," commented one team boss at the Belgian Grand Prix on Friday.
WWW.AUTOSPORT.COM
 
Just because it's common doesn't justify it.

Agreed. But it's the reality of things in F1. Which is why the holier-then-thou attitude by a certain team annoys me.



Thinking about it, McLaren are sort of punished because of Ferrari's bad security.

That's the risk they took... if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
3.5 On 21 March 2007 at 09.57 Mr. de la Rosa wrote to Coughlan in the following

terms:

"Hi Mike, do you know the Red Car's Weight Distribution? It would be

important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator. Thanks in

advance, Pedro.

p.s. I will be in the simulator tomorrow."


3.6 In his evidence given to the WMSC, Mr. de la Rosa confirmed that Coughlan

replied by text message with precise details of Ferrari's weight distribution.

3.7 On 25 March 2007 at 01.43 Mr. de la Rosa sent an e-mail to Fernando Alonso

which sets out Ferrari's weight distribution to two decimal places on each of

Ferrari's two cars as set up for the Australian Grand Prix.

3.8 Mr. Alonso replied to this e-mail on 25 March 2007 at 12.31 (they were in

different time zones). His e-mail includes a section headed "Ferrari" in which he

says "its weight distribution surprises me; I don't know either if it's 100%

reliable, but at least it draws attention"
. The e-mail continues with a discussion

I have been waiting for all the facts to come out before commenting on this incident. In the Australian GP, Ferrari has about 1 second per lap advantage, but after that Mclaren must have tired out a few things that Ferrari was doing, and it has obviousely worked for them as well, and we notice Mclaren was back on pace a few weeks later. In fact these Ferrari technical details might also help or influence Mclaren's design of next years car as well. Sure their car might look different to the Ferrari, but the actual mechanical stuff underneath the skin, and the layout and positioning of the various components might be similar.

Mclaren is proven guilty, so people please stop the Ferrari and FIA bashing. However there are a few questions I want to ask. After this verdict is there any chance Alonso will stay with Mclaren next year? How come de la Rosa and Alonso did not inform Lewis about these details? What will happen to Nigel Stepney?
 

Trending content


Back
Top