Renault in new spy scandal!

[timbo]

They are guilty, but not punished.....

as McLaren were after the first hearing? Why people always forget that?

I believe that FIA HAD to punish McLaren at the first hearing. If they've done that they could punish Renault or any other team that was accused in posession of other's IP.

Now FIA have to make desicions basing on very shacky (basicly unprovable) terms of USING IP.

Those who feel pissed cause McLaren was punished and Renault was not, has to remember that it was McLaren who ESCAPED the penalty in the first place that led to such difference.

[meves]

Whatever the nuances between the cases I really don't believe that there can be any justification for one team being fined and another not when they are both essentially guilty of breaching the same rule for the same reason. I agree the amounts may vary but it is just impossible to see how an unbiased verdict can be claimed.

I just hope that Max steps down soon and some sanity can prevail.

[Steven]

Whatever the nuances between the cases I really don't believe that there can be any justification for one team being fined and another not when they are both essentially guilty of breaching the same rule for the same reason. I agree the amounts may vary but it is just impossible to see how an unbiased verdict can be claimed.

I just hope that Max steps down soon and some sanity can prevail.

Before we get into throwing dirt in all directions as was the case with the McLaren spy case, let me state that the FIA will explain more about its decision soon.

Also, as I have written in several news items here and there, Renault have always stated their informed the FIA immediately after finding out what was going on. McLaren on the other hand did nothing and several management people knew about it all the time.
That is the big difference. You can never prevent an employee to bring in something, it's uncontrollable, but the way a team reacts to it when it find out is of utmost importance.

[monkeyboy1976]

Here it is:-

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Re ... 07-01.html

[coreybaxter]

How can Bernie Eccelstone and Jean Todt be on the panel to make decisions in this case. Eccelstone is a very good friend with Flavio and Jean has an obvious interest in the case, siding with renault.

[Seas]

They are guilty, but not punished.....

as McLaren were after the first hearing? Why people always forget that?

I believe that FIA HAD to punish McLaren at the first hearing. If they've done that they could punish Renault or any other team that was accused in posession of other's IP.

Now FIA have to make desicions basing on very shacky (basicly unprovable) terms of USING IP.

Those who feel pissed cause McLaren was punished and Renault was not, has to remember that it was McLaren who ESCAPED the penalty in the first place that led to such difference.

That's a point. If I remember correctly, and I do, no so long time ago, McLaren fans were very happy with first ruling in Ferarry spy case. Guilty, but without punishment.
For me, in both cases, McLaren and Renault should be punished, because both of them actually break the sporting code.
McLaren who was not penalized on first hearing, they are the first of two who are find guilty but not punished. So, please, don’t be hypocrites, rouling was same in both cases, and BTW, wrong in my opinion.
On the end, McLaren was punished because Ferarry found additional proofs on actual use of this information’s.

[bizadfar]

Mclaren SENT Phil Mackareth to Renault to set them in a trap.

Ferrari told Nigel Stepney to give info to Mclaren so they could take them to a hearing! It's all part of the plan.

/MC mode

[monkeyboy1976]

There's another press release regarding the other decisions of the WMSC.
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Re ... 07-14.html

This contains a confusing statement on the investigation into Mclaren's 2008 car:-
"In its decision of 13 September 2007, the WMSC instructed the FIA Technical Department to conduct an investigation of the preparatory work by McLaren on its 2008 car to determine whether that car incorporates any confidential Ferrari information. This investigation has been concluded and a detailed report submitted to the WMSC. The WMSC considers that McLaren, Ferrari and the other competitors in the FIA Formula One World Championship should be afforded the opportunity to make considered representations on the report at an extraordinary general meeting of the WMSC to be held on Thursday 14 February 2008 in Paris. "
So all the other teams are going to get a good look at details of McLaren's 2008 spec and then have a good old chat about it on Valentine's Day? Surely a Valentine's Day massacre for McLaren?
It also notes that the FIA will be sueing The Times newspaper for suggesting that the FIA are on a witch-hut against McLaren. The Times may have a point IMHO.

Also in that release there's massive restrictions on how teams will run their R&D departments. Restricting hours of work and number of employees. Isn't this a move that oversteps the FIA's remit?

And another thing, off topic, but there will be no Monte Carlo Rally in 2009 and no Rally GB in 2010?! Eh?

[meves]

Whatever the nuances between the cases I really don't believe that there can be any justification for one team being fined and another not when they are both essentially guilty of breaching the same rule for the same reason. I agree the amounts may vary but it is just impossible to see how an unbiased verdict can be claimed.

I just hope that Max steps down soon and some sanity can prevail.

Before we get into throwing dirt in all directions as was the case with the McLaren spy case, let me state that the FIA will explain more about its decision soon.

Also, as I have written in several news items here and there, Renault have always stated their informed the FIA immediately after finding out what was going on. McLaren on the other hand did nothing and several management people knew about it all the time.
That is the big difference. You can never prevent an employee to bring in something, it's uncontrollable, but the way a team reacts to it when it find out is of utmost importance.

Sadly Tomba I have to stick by what I said, and I quote

8.10. However, the WMSC notes with strong disapproval the fact that there were individuals of sufficient seniority within Renault who should have known that the drawings that Mackereth showed them contained proprietary confidential information. This organisational failing meant that they did not report the matter to their line managers as they should have done. Had they done so, the matter may have been brought to the FIA’s attention at a far earlier stage.

Also the data was shown to Renault between Sept 2006 and July 2007, none of it can be proved to have been used in the car design but I didn't think they every proved in on the McLaren either...

[manchild]

You all know that I'm a Renault fan but I'll still say that ruling against Renault with no punishment only proves that there is no fairness in WMSC at all. Seniority level rubbish my ass.

Since punishing Renault would mean no benefit for Ferrari, WMSC didn't punish Renault. As simple as that.

Renault had blueprints for two season Mclaren cars while Mclaren had blueprints only for one season Ferrari car. And of course, there are no black drivers in Renault so that must have helped too.

Remember when Ferrari pulled strings to close down factory in South Africa that was manufacturing special alloy for Mclaren in late 90s? Senior management of Ferrari knew about secret material Mclaren used. What ever happened to them? Did WMSC ever questioned how Ferrari senior management found out about specific part on Mclaren car?

Was there ever a punishment for Ferrari because their senior management caused farce in Austrian GP which led to death of that GP? Wasn't that against FIA sporting regulations?

F1 today = Chicago 1930's. Bunch of rival gangs, corrupted police and courts. Gang that is most generous to corrupted police and courts becomes favored.

What we need is modern F1 Eliot Ness = Paul Stoddart

[FLC]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61155
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61162

This is exactly what Ferrari has warned about after the first hearing, a warning which many members of this forum refused to accept in the name of FIA-Ferrari so called favoritism:

Ferrari notes that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has been found guilty by the FIA World Council. It therefore finds it incomprehensible that violating the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not have, as a logical and inevitable consequence, the application of a sanction. Today's decision legitimises dishonest behaviour in Formula One and sets a very serious precedent. In fact, the decision of the World Council signifies that possession, knowledge at the very highest level and use of highly confidential information acquired in an illicit manner and the acquiring of confidential information over the course of several months, represent violations that do not carry any punishment..."

Combining this statement with what McLaren had to say about the matter in the second url given above is the definition of what they call "poetic justice". Now let Mclaren, the so called offended side, commence an inquiry as for whether Renault actually used the information or not.

Ironic as it would be, this is the first consistent decision the authorities of the FIA have taken in a very long time, even though it's not necessarily the right one. My personal view is that both McLaren and Renault should have been heavily punished right from the start.

Your theory is flawed, MC. Any team would have liked to have their rivals punished, especially when it's one of the closest and you don't have to get your hands dirty to make it happen. It could have made 2008 a bit easier for Ferrari, with both McLaren and Renault starting the season behind. Doesn't that also contradicts the diabolical image you have on Ferrari? Would they really miss an opportunity like this?!

Oh, and I really pity you if Paul Stoddart is your needed saviour.

[checkered]

The standard yes. but what standard is this? Clarify why Mclaren was fined $100m, ie what reason did the WMSC give? because that should the standard (or the precedent).

The standard that

I stated, namely the FIA and F1 at large trusting that a team has come clean about all its improper actions before the hearing is held, so that championships remain unaffected and there's no need to re-examine the issue later on. If further evidence emerges that proves the trust misplaced, it is also examined as a violation of the international sporting code. It is well established that the absolute amount of McLaren's fine doesn't represent a standard measure of another team's misdeed, since it was proprortional not only to the breach, but also proportional to McLaren's resources at the time. And yes, $100M is a ghastly sum of money. Why the loss of constructors' points (and the inevitable loss of income from that) wasn't enough, that you have to ask the FIA.

I did read the full FIA decision on the Renault case and based on that I have to say that had I been given free reign over it, I would've fined Renault a substantial amount (10 - 15% of whatever proportion of resources the latter Mclaren decision was based on, in line with the proportion of confidential IP material within the files Mackereth had taken in this case. Without looking into the issue I suppose the sum would amount to $5M - $10M.), required them to issue a public apology to McLaren but not deduct any championship points. But clearly this wouldn't have been based on FIA's criteria (access, influence and consideration for use - apparently not mere possession, something the FIA clearly left for the courts to appraise) but preventability, leadership accountability and incriminating actions with regard to being conscious of going against the international sporting code.

This doesn't mean I think Renault has been terribly in the wrong in how it has behaved. This doesn't even mean I think McLaren has been terribly wrong in how it has behaved. It just means that if it is accepted that the buck stops at the team and the team as a whole alone, then that's the level where the actions must be taken. Personally, I'd like to consider more nuanced approaches, but currently those are for the courts.

There's quite a number of finer and not so fine points that can be made of all this, and a lot of information to be gleaned from FIA's decision alone. But perhaps that's for another time, as not to muddy the waters with impossibly long posts. Many articles on different websites have already tried to frame the latest decision as not in line with McLaren's treatment. Well, by the standard set by the WMSC (access, influence and consideration for use) the cases are quite different. Differences are even more glaring when it comes to the transparency of the cases. And the direct comparisons believed to work in Mclaren's favour (oftentimes the effect has been completely the opposite) actually stand in the way of rather vital considerations of how F1 should approach IP issues in general.

MC: Ness = Stoddart? ... Hmmm, he recently admitted that he liked the political games the most in F1. But perhaps you're right. I tried to imagine who I could nominate as "Eliot Ness of F1" but currently I'm drawing a blank.

[mcdenife]

Checkered wrote

I stated, namely the FIA and F1 at large trusting that a team has come clean about all its improper actions before the hearing is held, so that championships remain unaffected and there's no need to re-examine the issue later on. If further evidence emerges that proves the trust misplaced, it is also examined as a violation of the international sporting code. It is well established that the absolute amount of McLaren's fine doesn't represent a standard measure of another team's misdeed, since it was proprortional not only to the breach, but also proportional to McLaren's resources at the time. And yes, $100M is a ghastly sum of money. Why the loss of constructors' points (and the inevitable loss of income from that) wasn't enough, that you have to ask the FIA.

1) You imply the team did not come clean. So even though there is nothing but speculation or suspicion about this, not much was added to the first judgement other than the plaintiffs' and Max's claim of 300 odd txt messages with no substance (till tomorrow they can not tell what these contained and conveniently neglected the fact that it was Mike C. who swore an affidavit(or whatever it was) that there was nothing further or other contact with N Stepney (or whatever) and not Mclaren, ie that by implication and legally, each was/is independent of the other). So in effect what has happened is that Mike C's sworn statement was not correct.....so let punish mclaren even though he was not acting for them.
2) Yes the fine does not represent a standard or a TEAM's (suspected) misdeads, Is not proportional to any breach and is not proportional to Mclaren racing' resources despite your assertions on behalf of the FIA (pls note I said Mclaren's racing Team). The correct word for the fine is: Obscene.
3) "Ghastly sum" does not even begin describing this miscarriage of justice.

Some people are simply and inaccurately drawing parallels with the first ruling. If only it were that simple. In the second hearing, mclaren was fined for what Renault freely admitted despite it not being proved, in mclaren's case. In effect, it remains a suspicion in mclaren case...but lets fine them anyway...just in case.

I have not read this latest ruling mainly because it wont make much different otherwise ( I have read the previous 2 from cover to cover, time and again, and cannot make any sense or find the so called smoking gun).

What I can say is that without refering to the previous cases, the ruling in this particular one stinks BIG TIME. This does not mean, in my book, that Renault are "criminal etc" but the FIA made an issue in the first instance and then put this aside in the next.

The most galling thing about all tihs was that Mclaren chose not to take this further to a civil (?) and proper court. I know why they didnt (someone has to put the sport first even if the FIA wont) but its still galling because idiots like Max already behave as if fans are dimwits and this just goes to reinforce that belief so much so that they are are now sueing the sunday times....well with access to less info than the times or journos, I can tell you that even I will win that one so there must be sometihng behind this.

[Rob W]

I have a simple solution/punishment to this.

Renault and McLaren, both found guilty, should have to run their cars for the entire 2008 season with an airbox painted a plain colour which doesn't match their livery. McLaren can run yellow, and Renault can run green).

It's simple, very annoying for the teams, and penalises them in some ways where it hurts most - but still allows them to race.

Rob W

[checkered]

Mcdenife, you’re not

discussing the issue with the FIA or Max here, nor with an apologist for either one. One can describe things as stinking and obscene all one wants (and many do), but if one ever got the chance to get the ear of anyone who’d actually give a damn, then one needs to have a well defined point too to drive home with suitably strong terms. If you haven’t read the latest decision, OK. To me, it does represent the clearest account of what happened at Renault thus far, especially if one tunes out the rules and rulings stuff.

As to “implying” that McLaren did not come clean, many websites do advertise that it’s all speculation and suspicion. On many a website this view is being promoted again and again as it’d become true by repetition. I don’t actually have to imply anything. The team’s own drivers testified to activities that showed beyond a doubt that McLaren’s original efforts to uncover the truth and the submission based on those efforts were lacking to a serious fault. Alonso asking de la Rosa point blank to supply information via Coughlan on the up to date specifics of Ferrari being one very clear cut example. At this point it appears that Renault’s comparable effort has been much more thorough and transparent.

The rulings, as I understand it, are based on access to information, the dissemination of information, the influence of the information and whether the information was considered for use/used. Possession of ill gained IP is illegal, but apparently that alone isn’t a sporting consideration. Yes, I’d love what I call a more “nuanced” approach, but as things stand, teams face the threat of collective sporting punishments for these sorts of things. There are solid reasons for that too, it is an approach that is accepted and prevalent far beyond Formula One. But to be blunt, fairness from a moral standpoint is a hard thing to restore once someone decides to knowingly breach the rules. That will reflect quite naturally in the processes and rulings as well, not intentionally, but merely because a response, if there is to be one, must have a degree of effectiveness.

I don’t assert things on behalf of the FIA. My references on the proportinality of McLaren’s fine are direct just because of that. In public, the fine has been described as proportional, so I’m repeating that, not offering it as my own opinion. I try to be specific about these sorts of things, even at the constant risk of being misinterpreted and misrepresented. I also volunteered a very unsubstantiated opinion of my own on the matter.

As to the parallels between McLaren’s and Renault’s first rulings and Mclaren’s second one, please, be my guest. What got McLaren into such trouble was in large part that they didn’t divulge what had happened as completely as Renault seems to have done before the first hearing of the WMSC. That’s what got them into the second one. On top of that, Coughlan’s affadavit already revealed that he had made senior McLaren employees and managers aware of some of the material, just as Mackereth had done with his. Coughlan himself happened to be in a much more senior position within his team. That the McLaren case still has unknowns doesn’t mean that facts weren’t established. They were. It actually adds to the case against McLaren if unresolved issues still remain, since they’re supposed to have co-operated fully. On comparison, it appears that it’ll be hard to find anything substantial to add to what happened at Renault.

F1 is fairly close to the abyss with these sorts of things happening in general. Yes, it sucks. I can’t imagine why the FIA would want to sue the Sunday Times over the op-ed piece by Brundle. I can’t see where the benefit is; the whole case will drag the spygate on unnecessarily for who knows how long. I read the article at the time and thought nothing of it – at the time it propably added to the interest towards F1.

@Rob W’s punishment suggestion ... I guess many already think that Renault subjected themselves to a punishment of mismatched livery during 2007! But that’s creative thinking. Much earlier I suggested that Ferrari and McLaren should’ve been subjected to forced arbitration about their affair in a certain timeframe and if they didn’t, then they’d have been subjected to summary fines and/or exclusion far outweighing any negatives that can result from a slightly unsatisfying bilateral agreement. I mean, if grown up people can’t agree on these things, is their place really in F1 at all?