What if it goes to the FIA World Motor Sport Council?
#1
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:13
a) Nothing
b) Hefty fine
c) Exclusion/ban from several races
d) Exclusion from the 2009 championship
e) Other
I can't see it going here, but if it did, I hope only a small fine would occur... a hefty fine, even on McLaren, in these economic times would hurt them. I seriously doubt we'd see exclusions because that would continue to hurt the sport's image.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:16
Originally posted by D.M.N.
So let's assume the FIA decide to take the McLaren thing further and take it to the World Motor Sport Council (I hope they don't, but let's presume). What will happen to them?
a) Nothing
b) Hefty fine
c) Exclusion/ban from several races
d) Exclusion from the 2009 championship
e) Other
I can't see it going here, but if it did, I hope only a small fine would occur... a hefty fine, even on McLaren, in these economic times would hurt them. I seriously doubt we'd see exclusions because that would continue to hurt the sport's image.
a) Nothing
Other drivers/teams have directly lied/tried to decieve the FIA in the past and nothing has happened, and at the end on the day this has all been blown up out of proportion IMO.
#3
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:17
Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.
#4
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:23
I hope not! As this is a trivial matter IMO.
#5
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:25
Originally posted by brunopascal
f) hanged, drawn and quartered....the only sensible thing really ;)
Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.
Where is the crucify option?
#6
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:25
Originally posted by Mika Mika
a) Nothing
Other drivers/teams have directly lied/tried to decieve the FIA in the past and nothing has happened, and at the end on the day this has all been blown up out of proportion IMO.
Massively blown out of proportion.
While we can all agree mistakes have been made (well according to what has been published), the whole paddock and especially the FIA acts "holier than thou" while we all know that they have as many if not even more dead bodies buried ...
#7
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:28
#8
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:34
senna da silva, damn right!
#9
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:36
Originally posted by brunopascal
Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.
Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.
#10
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:44
Originally posted by primer
Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.
Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.
Never read an apology by either ...
#11
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:46
Originally posted by primer
Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.
Yawn.
#12
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:49
#13
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:52
Originally posted by peroa
Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.
Never read an apology by either ...
Indeed, which is why I doubt it'll ever go further. There is prior presidance.
#14
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:53
Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?
Looking back, it doesn't look like they were given any suspended penalties (might be wrong but can't find anything)
#15
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:54
I wonder what McLaren would do. No concorde agreement and all.
#16
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:58
#17
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:59
Originally posted by gincarnated
D for the fallout!
I wonder what McLaren would do. No concorde agreement and all.
Probably go legal and take the FIA to civil court...
As i say there is prior presidance...
#18
Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:59
No don't think so but if there was a suspended penalty from back then, this would exactly be the kind of offense to bring a penalty into effect.Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?
Don't think this needs to go any further although slapping a suspended penalty on McLaren might do some good.
Maybe a "pull this sh*t 1 more time and you're out of the championship" kind of penalty hanging over their lying heads would force a break with the culture of deceit and cheating that now prevails at Paragon.
#19
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:05
Yup, agree that it doesn't look like there was anything. The 2nd WMSC decision gave no such penalty and that was the final decision.Originally posted by stevvy1986
Looking back, it doesn't look like they were given any suspended penalties (might be wrong but can't find anything)
So this one should be judged individually.
JPW - agree that a suspended penalty of some kind might not be a bad call here.
Having said that, as others have mentioned, it's happened before with no penalty whatsoever. So even the DQ could be argued to be laying it on a bit thick, let alone anything on top of that.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:13
Originally posted by Gareth
Having said that, as others have mentioned, it's happened before with no penalty whatsoever. So even the DQ could be argued to be laying it on a bit thick, let alone anything on top of that.
Excatly my point a DQ is actually harsh. In 2006 Schumacher even got points in that race and he and the whole Ferrari Senior managment effectivly deliebretly lied to try and spoil more than 1 person race...
This has been blown up because it's Hamilton and McMerc.
#21
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:15
Originally posted by primer
Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.
I might have missed smth, but Whitmarsh never lied to questions asked by the FIA or stewards during some kind of hearing, so they have nothing to punish him for. Lying to the press on the other hand happens every weekend I guess...
But ok, perhaps they could decide Lewis should be punished further for lying or perjury if they see it fit. I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened after all... I just hope not because he already got disqualified and thus lost 4th place, I think it's enough.
Btw, wasn't Villeneuve threatened with some kind of penalty in 1996 or 1997 for contemptuous behavior in front of the FIA by dressing or expressing himself improperly?
#22
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:16
You cant compare the "crime".Originally posted by peroa
Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.
If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.
HaPe
#23
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:21
#24
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:23
Originally posted by inca_roads
Would someone remind me what punishment Benetton got in 94 for the fuel rig thing? I'm not stirring trouble, I genuinely can't remember.
they had to pay either a $10 or take a chance
#25
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:25
Originally posted by HaPe
You cant compare the "crime".
If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.
HaPe
Politely disagree!
They both lied? Yes?
They both brought the sport into disrepute? Yes?
Because, dear HaPe, that will be the accusation of the FIA if it goes any further.
In that sense it`s the same.
#26
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:30
Actually at first I was thinking this doesn't need a follow-up at the WMSC because McLaren will have learned their lesson by now.Originally posted by Gareth
JPW - agree that a suspended penalty of some kind might not be a bad call here.
But the more I came to think of it, the more I see that McLaren hasn't learned a thing of what happened in 2007 and (to a lesser degree) 2008 otherwise they would have never gotten themselves into such a mess.
So a suspended penalty could help however I am sure that if they (try to) pull a similar stunt ever again that the WMSC will have their head on a platter and imo rightly so.
#27
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:34
#28
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:39
Originally posted by HaPe
You cant compare the "crime".
If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.
HaPe
Exactly the point that I was about to make. The closest that I can think of is Massa claiming that Alonso slowed him in qualli, but the fundamental difference is that massa wasn't caught on recording admitting it.
IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.
#29
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:43
Originally posted by Josta
IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.
"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."
See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.
#30
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:46
Originally posted by inca_roads
"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."
See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.
It doesn't matter, we have a selection of extreme fans/trolls, a lot of alonso fans and some extreme ferrari fans who are so extreme in their views that it is quite distrubing, there sole purpose seems to spew hate and rile other people up.
#31
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:47
Did Schumacher blame Alonso for an illegal manouvre to get Alonso get a penalty? No?
Okay - hope you see the difference.
#32
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:48
Originally posted by HaPe
@inca_roads
Did Schumacher blame Alonso for an illegal manouvre to get Alonso get a penalty? No?
Okay - hope you see the difference.
Neither did bloody Lewis, he didn't go to the stewards, he was summoned
#33
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:49
I'd say a large fine to be donated to a charity that promotes Fair Play, Lewis spending 10 days to promote Fair Play and a suspended ban of McLaren from the F1 championship.Originally posted by Josta
IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.
Oh and a 3 year probationary period.
#34
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:51
Originally posted by Anomnader
Neither did bloody Lewis, he didn't go to the stewards, he was summoned
Schumacher was summoned too, or?
What does that matter?
Hamilton/Ryan deliberately lied to have Trulli get a penalty and earn P3.
Thats a much different quality, compared to lying to defense your position as an accused.
#35
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:52
It`s about article 151c, yes?
151c)
Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the
interests of any competition or to the interests of motor
sport generally.
aka "bringing the sport into disrepute"
#36
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:52
Originally posted by brunopascal
f) hanged, drawn and quartered....the only sensible thing really ;)
Doesn't that come under e) other?
#37
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:53
Originally posted by inca_roads
"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."
See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.
Please post the link to the recorded transcript of Schumacher telling his team that he did this.
Also, Schumacher was the accused. Try asking Jeffrey Archer the difference between lying in defence and lying as the the accuser.
#38
Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:57
Originally posted by peroa
Please, again, that`s not what it`s about.
It`s about article 151c, yes?
aka "bringing the sport into disrepute"
Do you want to tell us, that Schumacher brought the sport into disrepute, when he parked in rascasse and (maybe!) lied to the stewards that he didnt it on purpose?
No, or?!
*edit:
and BTW, peroa, no its NOT about "bringing the sport into disrepute"
151 c is here about:
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.
HaPe
#39
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:02
Advertisement
#40
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:06
The tainting shadow is already hanging over the new (and promising) season.
#41
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:12
Why is this thread so full of people demanding the severest of punishments for McLaren, Hamilton, etc, even the FIA stewards, for... wait for it... lying / being economical with the truth / bending the reality, etc. Undoubtedly not right, but hang on... hands up those of you who have never stretched the truth... ever.
Why can't we all worry about, and focus on, more important things.
Where is the outrage against, for example, Barrichello for hitting (among others) Raikkonen and getting off scot free - a potential safety issue, or worse still, Vettel for driving his car around with the potential to drop a wheel at any moment (I seem to remember a loose wheel killing an Aussie marshal not so many years ago).
Why do we have to focus on trivia.
It really does sound like a typical secondary school "He said... but no, but she told me... he's a liar... it's not fair... " crap.
Oh, by the way, I am not outraged against the above drivers although I think Vettel needed to be reined in (i.e. told to pull off immediately by his team / flag marshals). But if we're going to get heated to the point of a nuclear reaction over what was said or not to stewards, can we also look at other people's more dangerous actions, irrespective of who they are, whether they are our favourite drivers or not.
How sad that Formula has descended to this, and that the majority of posters feel it is really really important what was said in a transcript versus what was told or not to the stewards, over the matter of... was it life and death; oh no, 3rd or 4th at reduced speed...
#42
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:21
Originally posted by Nick Planas
Question for everyone really...
Why is this thread so full of people demanding the severest of punishments for McLaren, Hamilton, etc, even the FIA stewards, for... wait for it... lying / being economical with the truth / bending the reality, etc. Undoubtedly not right, but hang on... hands up those of you who have never stretched the truth... ever.
Bringing the sport into disrepute again while being on probation. Done deal IMHO. They will be excluded.
#43
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:24
Where is this "sport" that is being brought into disrepute?java script:smilie(':')
Thought so...
#44
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:30
Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?
I don't believe so tbh. I've had a dig (not exhaustive mind you, i stand to be corrected as always), the following is from the the September 2007 hearing :
"The decision of the World Council is that, for 2007, McLaren will not be excluded from the Championship, but will lose all of the manufacturers points scored thus far and will score no manufacturers points for the rest of the season. They will also pay a fine of USD 100 million, less the money lost through the removal of the 2007 points. A very considerable sum of money is lost through the 2007 points; that will be deducted and the actual fine will be the difference between that figure and the USD 100 million.
The Sporting Code (Article 152) provides that removal of the manufacturers' points also entails removal of the drivers' points, barring exceptional circumstances. We believe that to be the case in that the drivers were given immunity; they therefore will not lose their points. Therein lies the exceptional circumstance. It is our belief that, without making that offer to the drivers, we would not have received the information that we had today. The drivers may continue to score point. If there is a podium, the drivers will go on it, but not McLaren. Furthermore, the other manufacturers' points remain as they are: the McLaren points gained thus far will disappear, and the rest of the places and money will be calculated on that basis."
I've had a look through the various links in Autosport's full coverage of the case and i can't find any specific references to threats of further action, so i can only assume these were implied threats by Mosley, not official statements of further action by the WMSC.
(edit, added)
You may be thinking of the 26th July hearing , which included the following:
It is the unanimous view of the World Council that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes were in possession of Ferrari secrets or Ferrari information, by virtue of Mr Coughlan's possession thereof, irrespective of certain other elements. We therefore find Vodafone McLaren Mercedes in breach of Article 151c. However, the evidence of any use of this material in a manner calculated to interfere with the Formula 1 World Championship is insufficient for us to impose any penalty.
Should, in the future, evidence emerge showing that the Formula 1 World Championship was prejudiced in any way by the possession of this information by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, either in 2007 or 2008 or any years subsequent to that, we reserve the right to invite the team back in front of the World Council, where they would be faced with the possibility of exclusion, not only from the 2007 World Championship, but also from the 2008 World Championship.
but of course this was the cause of the 2nd hearing, the judgment of which is shown above.
#45
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:33
Originally posted by Nick Planas
Ah I see the flaw in that.
Where is this "sport" that is being brought into disrepute?java script:smilie(':')
Thought so...
This latest scandal is actually much worse than spygate. This is really bringing the sport into disrepute.
#46
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:40
???? How so ????Originally posted by bugmenot
This latest scandal is actually much worse than spygate. This is really bringing the sport into disrepute.
This is SOOOOO blown outta proportion... Its (drivers and teams lieing) has happened so many times before and it'll prob happen again..
#47
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:41
They believed someone who would be the first one to benefit a penalty given to Trulli.
How naive is this really? I dont understand them. They trusted Hamilton completely and dismissed Trulli. Why? I really wonder.
#48
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:44
I now think differently. It seems that McLaren is a "fall guy" organisation.
Lewis needed protecting, so sack the sporting director. Something is clearly rotten in Woking, and it can't be a coincidence that lying is yet again linked to McLaren.
It seems they have learned nothing from 2007.
#49
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:45
Originally posted by Mika Mika
???? How so ????
This is SOOOOO blown outta proportion... Its (drivers and teams lieing) has happened so many times before and it'll prob happen again..
It's calculated and premeditated. That's why it much worse. When Coughlan got hold of the Ferrari stuff he got it from a source. He didn't act alone. Someone else acted first. What happened in Melbourne can be described as first degree murder. In the world of sport of course. It's very, very serious stuff.
#50
Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:48
Well yes it does! But being such a relevant option, I thought I should spell it out...Originally posted by wewantourdarbyback
Doesn't that come under e) other?