Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quiet One

Fia's Veredict In Full

Recommended Posts


The important part:

11. Decision

11.1. For the foregoing reasons, the WMSC:

11.1.1. finds Renault in breach of Article 151© of the International Sporting Code,

11.1.2. imposes no penalty due to the lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here

Lots of info to process there. A rather interesting reading material.

Enjoy.

Well I have read about half of it, so far. I also skipped to the end to read the conlusion :lol:

Here are the bits that confuse me so far :

Renault case -

6.7. The WMSC has heard evidence that soon after Mackereth joined Renault in September 2006, he had two conversations about the general features of the McLaren damper system with two Renault engineers, including the Deputy Technical Director, Mr. Allison. The conversations related to the FIA's decision to ban tuned mass dampers in July 2006, and statements by Mr. Ron Dennis at the German Grand Prix that McLaren had an alternative and legal system that achieved results similar to a tuned mass damper. Following these initial conversations, Mackereth admits that, sometime in October 2006, he brought paper copies of two McLaren drawings of a mass damper and a 'J-damper' from his home and showed them to Mr. Allison and the Head of Mechanical Design, Mr. Duffy.

6.8. Mackereth also admits showing the drawings of the McLaren mass damper and the 'J-damper' to a further three Renault engineers, one of whom also admitted photocopying the drawings so that he could study them at home. He returned the originals to Mackereth and later destroyed the copies he had taken.

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.

11.1.2. imposes no penalty due to the lack of evidence that the Championship has been affected.

Mclaren case -

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After both spygates of the year, the first and most important conclusion is Macca should find a new CEO inmediately! Is well proved by BOTH cases Ron is not up to the job. He is not up to Lucca. He is not up to Flavio. He is a moron and Haug maybe too. So MB and has an old problem and big problem. Ron is getting old and not wiser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought I'd highlight those points as they seem a bit contradictory to me, but what I'd really like to know, or have a different view about, is how is 6.7, in the Renault case, not intention to use McLaren information, like it states in 8.11 of the McLaren case?

The way i see it is that even though Reno got an advantage in terms of the championship they lost more than they gained, they went from 1st to effectiely fourth (actually 3rd)

So i think the way FIA looks at it, not nesscarily the way i see it, that Mclaren gained bigtime from 06 to 07 from not winning a race to winning 8 overall. While Reno went from winning the championship to hardly getting on the podium.

And Mclaren has drivers and "senior" staff involved like heads of departments, while Reno, apparently, didn;t....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way i see it is that even though Reno got an advantage in terms of the championship they lost more than they gained, they went from 1st to effectiely fourth (actually 3rd)

So i think the way FIA looks at it, not nesscarily the way i see it, that Mclaren gained bigtime from 06 to 07 from not winning a race to winning 8 overall. While Reno went from winning the championship to hardly getting on the podium.

And Mclaren has drivers and "senior" staff involved like heads of departments, while Reno, apparently, didn;t....

You may be right, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me. The championship is the whole competition, not just the first couple of places. So even theough they dropped from 1st to 4th/3rd, they still might have affected the championship. Surely, you can't escape punishment purely for being sh!te at cheating though ?? :lol:

That's why I highlighted those bits. From those snippets, it looks like a few Renault technical staff were involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't think it matters whether the teams did better of worse this season than last. I don't think the FIA will have considered that a valid argument. "Please Sir, we cheated, but we were so bad at it that we still were beaten."

I haven't read the WMSC report, but based on the excerpts Paul carefully selected for us, it seems that the difference could be that Renault were looking into whether McLaren were cheating (albeit by cheating themselves!), whereas McLaren were cheating in order to gain time on track, not simply to check whether the Ferrari was legal. Just a possibility...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No I don't think it matters whether the teams did better of worse this season than last. I don't think the FIA will have considered that a valid argument. "Please Sir, we cheated, but we were so bad at it that we still were beaten."

I haven't read the WMSC report, but based on the excerpts Paul carefully selected for us, it seems that the difference could be that Renault were looking into whether McLaren were cheating (albeit by cheating themselves!), whereas McLaren were cheating in order to gain time on track, not simply to check whether the Ferrari was legal. Just a possibility...

I didn't 'carefully select' them for the sole purpose of being derogatory to Renault, just they were points that struck me as being contradictory! :lol:

Well, to be honest, it all sounds a tad dodgy anyway, doesn't it - we only wanted to check the drawings to see if McLaren were cheating, honest! :D However, Mackereth told them that McLaren had a legal alternative to the mass damper and then he brings in 2 drawings. It doesn't say at that point that they wanted the drawings to see if Mclaren's version was legal. It sounds more like they wanted to use a mass damper that was legal, to me it does, anyway.

Besides, I think it is important that Andres knows he supports a cheating, sweaty-armpitted, scumbag team! :mf_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some first impressions, some of them in regard to what you say, Paul:

1) This bothers me: FIA's statement are usually very tainted with subjective hintings. The whole McLaren statement sounded like an accusation, whereas the Renault one seemed to excuse everything. Even if cases are different, the statements should sound more objective so as not to rise suspicions over the actual fairness involved.

2) Differences between both cases: *according to FIA* Renault seemed more cooperative from the beginning, and they gave McLaren plenty opportunities to corroborate their findings. For the amount of detail about each document, its content and availability, it certainly seems so when compared to McLaren's.

3) Point 8.5 of the McLaren Statement is just a rejection of McLaren's objections. It says that FIA could punish McLaren just for being in possession of stolen data, if they choose to. Fatc is, neither McLaren nor Renault were punished for mere possesion. McLaren was punished for the intent of use (or something like that) and they actually gained some kind of advantage (that part is still not clear to me)

4) Apparently, McLaren's docs stolen were less critical than Ferrari's

5) Briatore is much better at lobbying than Ron. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some first impressions, some of them in regard to what you say, Paul:

1) This bothers me: FIA's statement are usually very tainted with subjective hintings. The whole McLaren statement sounded like an accusation, whereas the Renault one seemed to excuse everything. Even if cases are different, the statements should sound more objective so as not to rise suspicions over the actual fairness involved.

2) Differences between both cases: *according to FIA* Renault seemed more cooperative from the beginning, and they gave McLaren plenty opportunities to corroborate their findings. For the amount of detail about each document, its content and availability, it certainly seems so when compared to McLaren's.

3) Point 8.5 of the McLaren Statement is just a rejection of McLaren's objections. It says that FIA could punish McLaren just for being in possession of stolen data, if they choose to. Fatc is, neither McLaren nor Renault were punished for mere possesion. McLaren was punished for the intent of use (or something like that) and they actually gained some kind of advantage (that part is still not clear to me)

4) Apparently, McLaren's docs stolen were less critical than Ferrari's

5) Briatore is much better at lobbying than Ron. :P

Damn, I didn't finish my previous post in time for you to see the edited version! :lol:

1. Maybe a little, but I don't think it is too important.

2. I have a bit of a problem with this. It's like saying it's ok to cheat as long as you admit it quickly, then you won't get sanctioned. Now, if there had been a difference in a penalty, I could accept that. For instance, if Renault got 1/2 their WCC points deducted and a $50m fine, you could say well that's because they admitted to it and cooperated fully right from the start. But to receive no sanction implies that it's ok to cheat.

3. Yes, I agree it is. What I was trying to point out was that the WMSC said that they did not have to prove an advantage was gained for them to punish McLaren -

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support a cheating, sweaty-armpitted scumbag team and I'm proud of it! :P

Now, back to subject:

1) I agree, yet it hurts whatever reputation FIA might have left of an unbiased authority.

2) It all depends on whether the underlying idea is that Macca or Renault actually cheated or just tried to take advantage of individual rogue employees. In the first case, you are right. In the second case (which I think is the FIA's not too orthodox philosophy) you could argue that whereas Macca tried to cheat based on Stepney's docs, Renault didn't pay much attention to the stolen docs and was more helpful in letting the FIA stablish whether or not they intended to obtain a sporting advantage. It is kind of dodgy, I admit. The core seems to be that Renault was more successful at proving that they could not get any advantage from the documents they had. Perhaps Ron should have focused on proving that the Macca could not make use of the data obtained like Renault did. Bad lawyers, perhaps?

3) No it does not contradict. They just state that they can punish a team just for having stolen documents, yet they coose not to. They didn't punish Macca for that, either. That is why Macca was not punished at first.

5) That's perfectly legal under FIA regulations! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't 'carefully select' them for the sole purpose of being derogatory to Renault, just they were points that struck me as being contradictory! :lol:

Well, to be honest, it all sounds a tad dodgy anyway, doesn't it - we only wanted to check the drawings to see if McLaren were cheating, honest! :D However, Mackereth told them that McLaren had a legal alternative to the mass damper and then he brings in 2 drawings. It doesn't say at that point that they wanted the drawings to see if Mclaren's version was legal. It sounds more like they wanted to use a mass damper that was legal, to me it does, anyway.

Besides, I think it is important that Andres knows he supports a cheating, sweaty-armpitted, scumbag team! :mf_tongue:

:lol: No no I know. I meant "kindly selected to save me the bother of wading through that document".

And yes it does seem a bit dodgy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FIA wrote to Renault on 8 November 2007 requesting it to appear at an extraordinary meeting of the WMSC

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I support a cheating, sweaty-armpitted scumbag team and I'm proud of it! :P

Now, back to subject:

1) I agree, yet it hurts whatever reputation FIA might have left of an unbiased authority.

2) It all depends on whether the underlying idea is that Macca or Renault actually cheated or just tried to take advantage of individual rogue employees. In the first case, you are right. In the second case (which I think is the FIA's not too orthodox philosophy) you could argue that whereas Macca tried to cheat based on Stepney's docs, Renault didn't pay much attention to the stolen docs and was more helpful in letting the FIA stablish whether or not they intended to obtain a sporting advantage. It is kind of dodgy, I admit. The core seems to be that Renault was more successful at proving that they could not get any advantage from the documents they had. Perhaps Ron should have focused on proving that the Macca could not make use of the data obtained like Renault did. Bad lawyers, perhaps?

3) No it does not contradict. They just state that they can punish a team just for having stolen documents, yet they coose not to. They didn't punish Macca for that, either. That is why Macca was not punished at first.

5) That's perfectly legal under FIA regulations! :P

1. Well I didn't hold the FIA in much esteem anyway! :lol:

2. Possibly, but you can see the loophole. If I was one to cheat (I sound like Julius Ceasar) I would now be thinking 'cool, cheat and if we get caught, just give full co-operation and use the Renault case as precedence'. Personally, I think you have to punish cheating, even if it is a lesser sentence than McLaren.

3. It does. In the first instance they are saying that they can basically do whatever they want because McLaren have been found to breach the sporting regulations. In the 2nd they are saying they can't impose a penalty because of lack of evidence. What they actually mean, if the McLaren ruling is correct, is that they didn't impose a penalty because they didn't want to - they have already said lack of evidence of an advantage is not enough to avoid a penalty if they choose to impose one, have they not?

5. And quite right too! Though watch this space! :lol:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..."

It does in the sense of it's not a normal ordinary meeeting :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MAx:

He also rebuked suggestions that the FIA is guilty of double standards in continuing to pursue McLaren but letting Renault off the hook for a similar case of spying.

"McLaren was punished because they did not tell the truth on 26 July. It was stated that the information had flowed exclusively to Mike Coughlan.

"Renault admitted from the outset that the information was discussed among a wider circle of engineers," Mosley explained.

"I do not have a problem with Ron (Dennis)," he continued. "I just want to hear the truth if we have to solve an internal problem.

"During the World Council meeting on 26 July I have the impression that he did not tell us the truth."

[url="http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/7043/900/"]http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/7043/900/[/url]

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

Just to clear up some facts:
The FIA ordered McLaren to issue a statement on Wednesday correcting the raft of factual errors in Bishop's briefing, including the fact that only 9 - not 18 - Renault employees viewed the British team's secrets.

A World Motor Sport Council statement on Friday also observed that McLaren created the impression in the briefing that Renault possessed "very large numbers" of McLaren design drawings.

The statement said: "McLaren has acknowledged to the WMSC that it circulated an erroneous press briefing which had created this impression, and has apologised and issued a correction. As far as the present proceedings are concerned, that concludes the matter."

[url="http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=238366"]http://www.totalf1.com/view-article.php?newsid=238366[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im half glad Renault were not punished, they can't really afford a fine and points deduction, they don't seem massively committed to F1 even now - a major hit would surely finish them off.

But on the other side, Max should really re-instate Mclaren in the championship last season and cancel the fine - bias can surely be proved after all this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Well I didn't hold the FIA in much esteem anyway! :lol:

2. Possibly, but you can see the loophole. If I was one to cheat (I sound like Julius Ceasar) I would now be thinking 'cool, cheat and if we get caught, just give full co-operation and use the Renault case as precedence'. Personally, I think you have to punish cheating, even if it is a lesser sentence than McLaren.

3. It does. In the first instance they are saying that they can basically do whatever they want because McLaren have been found to breach the sporting regulations. In the 2nd they are saying they can't impose a penalty because of lack of evidence. What they actually mean, if the McLaren ruling is correct, is that they didn't impose a penalty because they didn't want to - they have already said lack of evidence of an advantage is not enough to avoid a penalty if they choose to impose one, have they not?

5. And quite right too! Though watch this space! :lol:

It does in the sense of it's not a normal ordinary meeeting :D

Here you can find an analysis on why both veredicts were different.

Edit: I am trying to be as unbiased as possible but I feel that my love for Renault is interferring. Feel free to bash me in the head if I sound too pro-Renault :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...