McLaren verdict

McLaren verdict

http :// news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6991147.stm

For years I've resisted the FIA/Ferrari conspiracy theories, but I
find it so hard to believe that Ron Dennis would be knowingly involved
in anything like this that I'm coming round to the idea that they've
been stitched up like a kipper.

What a mess.

--
([:]) by Kimbo!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator.

note: hotmail address is a spam bin
www .bykimbo,com

Re: McLaren verdict

Kim Andrews wrote:

> http :// news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6991147.stm
>
> For years I've resisted the FIA/Ferrari conspiracy theories, but I
> find it so hard to believe that Ron Dennis would be knowingly involved
> in anything like this that I'm coming round to the idea that they've
> been stitched up like a kipper.
>
> What a mess.

<applauds>

But it ain't over yet, young Kimbo.

--

Re: McLaren verdict

Paul-B wrote:

> But it ain't over yet, young Kimbo.

Nope. The FIA is waiting until tomorrow to publish the reasons for its
decision.

So I will reserve judgement until then, and refrain from wondering if
there's a room full of FIA legal types in Paris at the moment
frantically trying to work out how the hell they're going to justify
this one to an incredulous public. Again.

--
Duncan Snowden.

Re: McLaren verdict

Duncan Snowden wrote:
> Paul-B wrote:
>
>> But it ain't over yet, young Kimbo.
>
>
> Nope. The FIA is waiting until tomorrow to publish the reasons for its
> decision.
>
> So I will reserve judgement until then, and refrain from wondering if
> there's a room full of FIA legal types in Paris at the moment
> frantically trying to work out how the hell they're going to justify
> this one to an incredulous public. Again.
>
I have to agree completely.

No matter how biased the FIA may be toward Ferrari, there must be some
kernel of truth to these allegations or they (the FIA and specifically
Max) would end up looking like complete morons.

No matter how this goes down, Max and company have done more damage to
the sport than McLaren (guilty or not) ever has. I just wish there was
a way to bring him up on charges.

Team FCAR

Re: McLaren verdict

"TeamFCAR" <teamfcar@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:RrnGi.26726$eY.18492@newssvr13.news.prodigy,net ...
> No matter how this goes down, Max and company have done more damage to the
> sport than McLaren (guilty or not) ever has. I just wish there was a way
> to bring him up on charges.


They may yet be a key factor in a potential McLaren legal challenge to the
verdict, to be held in a proper court of law rather than in front of a
clearly biased lynchmob.

Paul

Re: McLaren verdict

On Sep 14, 5:20 am, TeamFCAR <teamf...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> Duncan Snowden wrote:
> > Paul-B wrote:
>
> >> But it ain't over yet, young Kimbo.
>
> > Nope. The FIA is waiting until tomorrow to publish the reasons for its
> > decision.
>
> > So I will reserve judgement until then, and refrain from wondering if
> > there's a room full of FIA legal types in Paris at the moment
> > frantically trying to work out how the hell they're going to justify
> > this one to an incredulous public. Again.
>
> I have to agree completely.
>
> No matter how biased the FIA may be toward Ferrari, there must be some
> kernel of truth to these allegations or they (the FIA and specifically
> Max) would end up looking like complete morons.
>
> No matter how this goes down, Max and company have done more damage to
> the sport than McLaren (guilty or not) ever has. I just wish there was
> a way to bring him up on charges.

I have to agree. What annoys me the most is that McLaren has received
a sentence based on what 'may' have occurred, as opposed to it being
properly investigated and proof provided. And to allow the drivers to
take part in the championship, despite the fact that they 'may' be
driving tainted cars, is ludicrous!

The whole thing smacks of bias towards Ferrari, the FIA knowing that
they would through the dummy out of their pram had they not come down
hard on McLaren - despite the lack of clear evidence of Ferrari IP
being incorporated into the McLaren cars.

I shall be watching the remainder of the season, as I would like to
see the drivers championship played out. However, I doubt very much
that I will be scheduling my weekends around F1 next year - what's the
point?

--
Pete

Re: McLaren verdict

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:45:06 +0100, PeteJ <boredbypolitics@gmail,com >
wrote:

>I have to agree. What annoys me the most is that McLaren has received
>a sentence based on what 'may' have occurred, as opposed to it being
>properly investigated and proof provided. And to allow the drivers to
>take part in the championship, despite the fact that they 'may' be
>driving tainted cars, is ludicrous!

Especially as the main evidence seems to be

Couglan spoke to Stepney
del la Rosa spoke to Couglan
del la Rosa spoke to Alonso
del la Rosa and Alonso thought it would be cool to get more Ferrari
data so they spoke to Couglan
Couglan spoke to Stepney

Now on the basis of that evidence, exactly *who* should be the one
thrown out of the championship? It just smacks of a total travesty of
justice, with no attempt at fairness. To my mind if the team broke the
rules, so did the drivers, period. If it was just the drivers and
Couglan then the precident of the Toyota case (where people were
actually *convicted* in a proper court of law, not a kangaroo court)
should apply.

--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se

Re: McLaren verdict

Duncan Snowden wrote:
> Nope. The FIA is waiting until tomorrow to publish the reasons for its
> decision.

Read through the decision published today.
http :// www .fia,com /mediacentre/Press Releases/FIA Sport/2007/September/140907-01.html

Well, I was expecting them to give some actual solid evidence. There's
some evidence that a disgruntled Nigel Stepney had been sending out
information to the other teams on "the red car"'s weight distribution
and the inert gas mix used to inflate their tired.

Of course, this isn't *hugely* useful information, and McLaren didn't
use either in the end. There's no evidence at all that McLaren solicited
information from Stepney, other than the Italian police saying that
Stepney had phone calls with other team's engineers.

One interesting point, is that the FIA use Stepney's whistle blowing
over the Flexible Wing as evidence against McLaren.

Another is a rather worrying is the full details of the sanctions. Not
only is there the fine, and the loss of points, and the loss of this
year's income... But they're only allowed to compete next year if they
submit their car for 'assessment' by FIA to exclude any 'technologies
that may have been developed using leaked information'.

Going by the example of this "balanced judgement", I can't see McLaren
being allowed to field anything near a competitive car next year.

I suspect this judgement comes solely against McLaren, and no other
teams involved, because they had the gall to field a better car than
this year's Ferrari. Why on earth would they want to steal 'secrets' of
a car which has not had the performance of their own?

- Jay

Re: McLaren verdict

Jay Blanc wrote:

> Read through the decision published today.
> http :// www .fia,com /mediacentre/Press Releases/FIA Sport/2007/September/140907-01.html
>
> Well, I was expecting them to give some actual solid evidence. There's
> some evidence that a disgruntled Nigel Stepney had been sending out
> information to the other teams on "the red car"'s weight distribution
> and the inert gas mix used to inflate their tired.
>
> Of course, this isn't *hugely* useful information, and McLaren didn't
> use either in the end. There's no evidence at all that McLaren solicited
> information from Stepney, other than the Italian police saying that
> Stepney had phone calls with other team's engineers.
On my first reading of it, I was shocked. It really looked like they
were bang to rights.

But the closer I look, the less convinced I become. You're right:
there's no evidence that "McLaren", as opposed to Mike Coughlan
personally, knew anything about the stolen documents, and the systematic
passing of information. It's obvious that de la Rosa (and therefore
Alonso) knew that *some* information had been received from Stepney, but
there's nothing to suggest they knew there were 700-odd pages of solid
Ferrari data in Coughlan's hands, let alone what they contained.

Alonso's email: "its weight distribution surprises me; *I don't know
either if it's 100% reliable*, but at least it draws attention".

If the two drivers knew that Coughlan had genuine Ferrari information on
his desk, as opposed to some casual chit-chat with a fellow engineer,
wouldn't it be obvious it was "100% reliable"? DLR replies that it's
"very reliable", coming from Stepney, which seems damning, but there's
no suggestion he knows that Coughlan is in possession of hard Ferrari
technical data: he says that a rear wing assembly was tried out which
was "a copy of the system we think Ferrari uses". They've a CD-ROM full
of detailed Ferrari plans plus all the "new" contact documented in
Section 4, and they don't *know*? Coughlan clearly did, but this
suggests to me that others in the team were under the impression that he
was only talking to Stepney, not in possession of confidential
documents. Bad enough, but not the same thing, and certainly not worthy
of a team punishment such as has been given.

And talking of Section 4, we've now got a 780-page Ferrari dossier, 288
text messages, 35 phone calls, and 23 emails between Stepney and
Coughlan, yet all that the drivers seem to know is that they *might*
know how the weight balance is set up, they *think* Ferrari uses a
certain rear wing setup, they *believe* it's using a certain braking
system... The only thing they seem sure about is the tyre gas.

Then, to cap it all, after the team has been "let off" at the previous
hearing to the intense frustration of Ferrari, Ron discovers this new
evidence and hands it over to the FIA. Why the hell would anyone who
knew all along and was guilty about his own role in the affair not
simply breathe a sigh of relief that he'd got away with it and keep schtum?

> Going by the example of this "balanced judgement", I can't see McLaren
> being allowed to field anything near a competitive car next year.
>
> I suspect this judgement comes solely against McLaren, and no other
> teams involved, because they had the gall to field a better car than
> this year's Ferrari. Why on earth would they want to steal 'secrets' of
> a car which has not had the performance of their own?

Well, Coughlan clearly did. Coughlan and Stepney are in it up to their
necks. But going on this evidence, I would say that *some* McLaren
employees were aware that *something* was going on, and that certainly
deserves punishment of some sort, but there's nothing here at all to
suggest that McLaren *as a team* set out to procure and use another
team's confidential data. Yet that is the obvious implication of this
record penalty.

Compare and contrast with Toyota, tried and convicted in a court of law
of deliberate industrial espionage (everyone's seen the blatant "Ferrari
clone"), and completely unpunished by the FIA to this day.

I don't think McLaren comes out of this entirely cleanly, but it still
stinks.

--
Duncan Snowden.

Re: McLaren verdict

Duncan Snowden wrote:
> Well, Coughlan clearly did. Coughlan and Stepney are in it up to their
> necks. But going on this evidence, I would say that *some* McLaren
> employees were aware that *something* was going on, and that certainly
> deserves punishment of some sort, but there's nothing here at all to
> suggest that McLaren *as a team* set out to procure and use another
> team's confidential data. Yet that is the obvious implication of this
> record penalty.

From what's coming out, it looks like it was Coughlan, Stephney, De La
Rosa, and Alonso who'd cooked this up without consent of the rest of the
team. With Alonso going as far to use it as blackmail material against
Ron to start putting him 'on top'.

Since FIA gave Alonso and De La Rosa blanket immunity in exchange for
their evidence, they get to come out of it clean.

Of course, I can't think of a team who's going to want Alonso driving
with them now, and McLaren certainly don't want him driving any more.

I certainly wouldn't hold it against McLaren if they 'released Alonso
from his contract' before the end of this season, especially if they
don't have constructor points to worry about any more.

- Jay

Re: McLaren verdict

In article <4ctsr4-e7q.ln1@deliverator.homeip,net >, Jay Blanc
<j@tmbg.org> writes:

> I certainly wouldn't hold it against McLaren if they 'released Alonso
> from his contract' before the end of this season, especially if they
> don't have constructor points to worry about any more.

I was thinking something along those lines, but not the "release from
contract" idea - as there's no constructors' points up for grabs, then
McLaren have nothing to lose by having only one of their drivers
finish all the remaining races, so there might be a certain amount of
unreliability and some rather poor pit stops and not-exactly-optimum
strategies creeping in on one side of the garage.

--
Mike Fleming

Re: McLaren verdict

In article <m8qne3t3dcokoiebv9t7ifc9pc5b7bn1er@4ax,com >, {mike}
@tauzero.co.uk says...
> I was thinking something along those lines, but not the "release from
> contract" idea - as there's no constructors' points up for grabs, then
> McLaren have nothing to lose by having only one of their drivers
> finish all the remaining races, so there might be a certain amount of
> unreliability and some rather poor pit stops and not-exactly-optimum
> strategies creeping in on one side of the garage.
>
>
No way... FA would go to his friends in the FIA and get McLaren done
over again for treating him like Eddie Irvine..

T.
>

Re: McLaren verdict

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:25:05 +0100, Mike Fleming
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <4ctsr4-e7q.ln1@deliverator.homeip,net >, Jay Blanc
><j@tmbg.org> writes:
>
>> I certainly wouldn't hold it against McLaren if they 'released Alonso
>> from his contract' before the end of this season, especially if they
>> don't have constructor points to worry about any more.
>
>I was thinking something along those lines, but not the "release from
>contract" idea - as there's no constructors' points up for grabs, then
>McLaren have nothing to lose by having only one of their drivers
>finish all the remaining races, so there might be a certain amount of
>unreliability and some rather poor pit stops and not-exactly-optimum
>strategies creeping in on one side of the garage.

That would do so much damage to their already wounded reputation that
they'd really have some heavy meetings with their sponsors and
partners, and next year's deals would suffer badly... a really crappy
business idea. However tempting. ;o)

If they can really prove that Alonso has been partly responsible for
all this mess as the evidence seems to suggest, a further court case
could be on the cards!

Whilst Alonso has looked bad in all this and my opinion of the guy is
pretty shaky at the moment (I've always had a huge amount of time for
Alonso previously, so I'm staying open minded as far as possible) I
think the main problem is the FIA over-stating the significance of all
that's happened, and making a major deal out of what largely amounts
to paddock tittle-tattle. People *talk* about work, about their
competitors, about what the word on their particular street is...
mostly it's just workplace chat, not some Watergate-style evil
conspiracy. But that's not how Ferrari want it seen.



--
([:]) by Kimbo!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I am not a moderator.

note: hotmail address is a spam bin
www .bykimbo,com

Re: McLaren verdict

In article <4ctsr4-e7q.ln1@deliverator.homeip,net >, j@tmbg.org says...
>
> Of course, I can't think of a team who's going to want Alonso driving
> with them now, and McLaren certainly don't want him driving any more.
>
> I certainly wouldn't hold it against McLaren if they 'released Alonso
> from his contract' before the end of this season, especially if they
> don't have constructor points to worry about any more.
>

I'm sure Ron will be willing to let Renault buy him out of his contract
for a suitable compensation sum..

Say $90M ?

Actually, after his reaction to Moselsy's accusations in the pitlane he
looked ready to chuck the whole thing in..

Especially telling was the statement that his personal integrity is a
damn site more important to him than F1 is.

T.

Re: McLaren verdict

"Jay Blanc" <j@tmbg.org> wrote in message
news:4ctsr4-e7q.ln1@deliverator.homeip,net ...
> I certainly wouldn't hold it against McLaren if they 'released Alonso from
> his contract' before the end of this season, especially if they don't have
> constructor points to worry about any more.


Well I was thinking about that. If Alonso was on the market now, and you
were Jean Todt, wouldn't you swap put Massa for the WC - you'd have a good
chance of taking the WDC from McLaren as well, especially given Alonso is
just a couple of points behind and Ferrari has a performance advantage at
the moment.

Paul