Jump to content


Photo

Davvy Ryan - Suspended or sacked?


  • Please log in to reply
202 replies to this topic

#1 BrawnsBrain

BrawnsBrain
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:12

The whole Hamilton / Ryan lying incident has now been blown out of all proportion. Whitmarsh resigning? Hamilton quitting the sport? Some of this is just rubbish written by hacks but some of it, especially from Whitmarsh has been a ridiculously over the top knee jerk reaction.

Withholding information is a lot easier on the conscious than lying, especially if you believe rightfully that your driver deserved 3rd. Indeed, Hamilton can be seen as deserving 3rd, Trulli made a mistake in flying off the road, Hamilton didn't need to let him past but thanks to McLaren's paranoia over the rules and the FIA, they got neurotic.

In that stewards room, if you have the opportunity to steal a competitive advantage, you will do it. You don't see the bigger picture of the damage it might cause, should you be found out. Yes, it was a bad tactic, a rush of blood to the head and any sort of dishonesty is not nice in a sporting context... but come on, 35 years at McLaren....snuffed out for this?
:confused:

Time to forget, move on. Reinstate Ryan. Has he been suspended or sacked? I don't even know - the world needs to learn to be more understanding and to put small things like this into perspective.

It may be fun to build the drama and encourage the storm, but this has now gone too far. It's a guy's life and career we're talking about here...

Advertisement

#2 gincarnated

gincarnated
  • Member

  • 445 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:17

I'm not sure when lying to the stewards became huge a big deal but **** it. A 3 year ban for McLaren seems about right.

#3 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:26

It all depends on the FIA reaction tbh.

if the FIA don't sanction mclaren, he'll probably be allowed back with reduced responsibilities. There'll have to be some action taken as he's caused the team bad publicity, which may affect future sponsors or current sponsors.

If the FIA do sanction mclaren, particularly if there's supension of wcc points, then he'll be gone faster than you can blink. And if they do, you can't disagree with mclaren's action, although whitmarsh, unfortunately would probably have to go to.

I hope the first course of action is taken. I cant see enough reason to sanction mclaren further, they lost out on the aus gp and that was fair enough. They've also had a huge amount of bad publicity, and anything further would appear to be rubbing salt into the wounds.

As for Whitmarsh, I like him, he seems more normal than Ron Dennis. However, he didn't have control over the situation. He didn't do anything wrong if his story is the truth, he just neglected to do the right thing.

I also hold the FIA responsible as steward's meetings should be minuted/transcripted and made public.

#4 BrawnsBrain

BrawnsBrain
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:27

Originally posted by gincarnated
I'm not sure when lying to the stewards became huge a big deal but **** it. A 3 year ban for McLaren seems about right.


Another fine pearl of wisdom there. :rolleyes:

Remember it may be just a soap opera to you, but Ryan is well respected servant of McLaren, and has been since 1973. Have some perspective and get over it.

I think he needs more defence than he has been getting, and that there is an element of 'bringing a winner back down to earth', which we Brits seem to be so fond of doing when anyone gets a hint of being even slightly cocky. Where are the Hamilton fans now? Supporting Button?

#5 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,850 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:29

He'll be back on the pitwall in Europe.

#6 paulm

paulm
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:33

Sacking someone who's been with them so long for one event seems a bit bit unreasonable to me.

It might be politically impossible to have him stay in the same role but even then there's surely plenty of places in the organisation where his experience can be put to good use.

#7 BrawnsBrain

BrawnsBrain
  • Member

  • 201 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:35

Originally posted by Blythy
As for Whitmarsh, I like him, he seems more normal than Ron Dennis. However, he didn't have control over the situation. He didn't do anything wrong if his story is the truth, he just neglected to do the right thing.


Whilst I agree that any further punishment from the FIA would indeed be rubbing salt in the wound, and pouring gasoline on the fire of rumours that the FIA are out to persecute McLaren, or that Max has a personal vendetta against Ron Dennis, I can't agree that Whitmarsh could have had any reasonable control over the situation as it unfolded.

As the boss of such a complex organisation, how is it possible to micro-manage to the extent of knowing what your trusted employees are doing at every second of every day, behind closed doors? It isn't practical, and it isn't the management's fault at all.

As Hamilton and Ryan met the stewards, what was Whitmarsh supposed to do about it, or indeed how was he supposed to know enough about what was going on to stop it happening?

It was Ryan's responsibility to conduct the meeting with the stewards, not Whitmarsh's and for whatever reason, he didn't see the potential far reaching implications of 'not mentioning certain facts'.

Why does Whitmarsh have to apologise and grovel for forgiveness like this? It's all political and corporate, it's awful.

In days gone by, a team boss would have simply said that such-and-such had been a bit of a bloody idiot, and then they would have shut up about it. But now, with idiotic 'corporate responsibility', big sponsors with their big money, the PR machines and political gesturing has all got out of control.

We do seem to have a habit as a nation at the moment, of using really small, petty, issues to bring down people in positions of 'responsibility'. Recent example - porn on a Sky bill of a government minister... who really, if you pardon the pun, gives a toss?

I think people should stop with all this error of judgement nonsense, and get a sense of perspective... people make mistakes, get over it. And just because someone makes a mistake, it doesn't always mean that the boss has to resign - it shouldn't have to always be a blame culture. Correct the fault and move on.

#8 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:46

I'd love to see McLaren release a statement stating that they would, and will, continue to do whatever it takes to win races and championships in the fashion that all greats have, and if that entails misleading FIA officials then so be it. And reinstate Dave Ryan immediately. They're just following in the footsteps of the most successful team in the recent past. :up:

#9 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 06 April 2009 - 23:56

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain

As Hamilton and Ryan met the stewards, what was Whitmarsh supposed to do about it, or indeed how was he supposed to know enough about what was going on to stop it happening?

It was Ryan's responsibility to conduct the meeting with the stewards, not Whitmarsh's and for whatever reason, he didn't see the potential far reaching implications of 'not mentioning certain facts'.


The only mistake I can see whitmarsh making is not getting a debrief off of ryan after they left the steward's meeting. If he'd had the debrief, then he is guilty of withholding information as well. If not, it comes across as incompetence. That's the only criticism I can make of whitmarsh, and it's a valid one. It's something that would have directly affected the amount of points the team had, and that is something he should have been on top of.

I do agree with you on the blame/judgement thing. The press only seem happy about people fvcking off and getting the new stiff in the job. Responsibility is also someone saying "I made the mistake, and it's my job to fix it." But if Mclaren get sanctioned, Ryan should be dismissed as its a major effect on the team. It could lead to wcc points being lost, which could reduce the amount of finance they recieve at the end of the year, and that could lead to job redundancies. Somebody can't be kept on in those circumstances just because they've been there 30 odd years.

#10 paulm

paulm
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 April 2009 - 00:20

Originally posted by Blythy
The only mistake I can see whitmarsh making is not getting a debrief off of ryan after they left the steward's meeting. If he'd had the debrief, then he is guilty of withholding information as well. If not, it comes across as incompetence. That's the only criticism I can make of whitmarsh, and it's a valid one. It's something that would have directly affected the amount of points the team had, and that is something he should have been on top of.


Perhaps, but on the other hand with a race the very next week how much time would you spend going over things that are, ostensibly at least, done and dusted?

Surely Whitmarsh has a myriad of other things to be looking at, is it really a surprise if time isn't invested in going over a stewards inquiry that is finished (and has gone in their favour)?

#11 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 587 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 00:37

BBC site seems to be hinting that Mclaren are going to get ****ed over this one.

#12 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 00:41

Originally posted by EvilPhil II
BBC site seems to be hinting that Mclaren are going to get ****ed over this one.


Be a disgrace if there are further sanctions. They have been punished and it should end there, anything else is just a witch hunt.

#13 BuonoBruttoCattivo

BuonoBruttoCattivo
  • Member

  • 4,430 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:15

Originally posted by EvilPhil II
BBC site seems to be hinting that Mclaren are going to get ****ed over this one.


What will happen, is prolly a 20 point deduction from WCC.
So Macca would effectively be negative something -19 or so if penalty happen today??

This is what will happen according to my info.

#14 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,880 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:26

equally unfathomable is going in front of the world media before supposedly establishing exactly what was said and by whom.

and being on holiday is no excuse for the ceo with extensive experience. was it too hard to say that he had more urgent issues and would be scheduling a press conference as soon as ....

#15 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:43

Originally posted by EvilPhil II
BBC site seems to be hinting that Mclaren are going to get ****ed over this one.

McLaren is not even competitive this season, so there is no reason for the FIA to screw around with them. Just a waste of time only.

-KB

#16 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,797 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:45

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


What will happen, is prolly a 20 point deduction from WCC.
So Macca would effectively be negative something -19 or so if penalty happen today??

This is what will happen according to my info.

A 20pt WCC deduction is quite a minor punishment given the fact that McLaren is not yet in the running for WCC this year. Does it matter if McLaren finished with 80pt or 60pt for this season?

-KB

#17 raiseyourfistfor

raiseyourfistfor
  • Member

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 07 April 2009 - 01:59

I think Davey was just suspended and he will be back soon, probably by bahrain or barcelona.

#18 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 April 2009 - 02:00

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo


What will happen, is prolly a 20 point deduction from WCC.
So Macca would effectively be negative something -19 or so if penalty happen today??

This is what will happen according to my info.

I don't want to "shoot the messenger" here.

IMO they've already paid their penalty - they lost all points from Melbourne. Done penalty paid and now it's time to move on.

Good luck proving anyone other than Ryan/Hamilton knew anything about this prior to the first stewards meeting. It will be all hearsay and.....oops that enough for Maxxx - guilty as charged...er ahh when they are charged. 20 lashes (and a cup of tea) for Martin in a Chelsea dungeon should do just fine.

#19 Classic Ferrari

Classic Ferrari
  • Member

  • 471 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 03:42

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
The whole Hamilton / Ryan lying incident has now been blown out of all proportion. Whitmarsh resigning? Hamilton quitting the sport? Some of this is just rubbish written by hacks but some of it, especially from Whitmarsh has been a ridiculously over the top knee jerk reaction.

Withholding information is a lot easier on the conscious than lying, especially if you believe rightfully that your driver deserved 3rd. Indeed, Hamilton can be seen as deserving 3rd, Trulli made a mistake in flying off the road, Hamilton didn't need to let him past but thanks to McLaren's paranoia over the rules and the FIA, they got neurotic.

In that stewards room, if you have the opportunity to steal a competitive advantage, you will do it. You don't see the bigger picture of the damage it might cause, should you be found out. Yes, it was a bad tactic, a rush of blood to the head and any sort of dishonesty is not nice in a sporting context... but come on, 35 years at McLaren....snuffed out for this?
:confused:

Time to forget, move on. Reinstate Ryan. Has he been suspended or sacked? I don't even know - the world needs to learn to be more understanding and to put small things like this into perspective.

It may be fun to build the drama and encourage the storm, but this has now gone too far. It's a guy's life and career we're talking about here...


Thats got to be the worst justification for the action i've heard yet.

Advertisement

#20 hedges

hedges
  • Member

  • 1,227 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 03:47

While I am more of the opinion it was a serious infraction in that it affected another team and driver negatively (which seems a bit low as well as being fraudulent since points are money in F1) I have no clue what the right punishment is for Ryan.

You can argue it happens more often than you think but you can't just ignore it when you KNOW someone has just lied to you and you have the evidence to prove it.

I think it would be a stupid/dangerous precident for the FIA to leave it where it is so maybe a big fine for McLaren (Austria big, not spygate big) and a censure from the FIA for Ryan and Hamilton. McLaren has to decide what to do with Ryan based on their own standards and what he has bought to the team vs what harm he has done to it.

Whatever the result F1 is the loser; Ryan is probably a product of his environment so sacking him seems harsh when it's probably the status quo and he is a sacrificial lamb, but keeping him on just goes to show that honesty and fair play aren't really important anymore. Either way, doesn't say much for F1 'the business'.

Edited to fix grammar

#21 paulm

paulm
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:00

What happened with the Honda "hidden fuel tank" thingo?
Am I correct in saying that Honda representatives originally maintained that there was no fuel left in the car and the stewards had to get something to look inside to prove otherwise.

I don't remember too much fall out from that, beyond the exclusion from that race, but perhaps I'm not recalling it fully.

#22 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:04

I would expect to see Ryan back on the job in a bit. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got a hefty bonus for falling on his sword when needed. :D

#23 Hotwheels

Hotwheels
  • Member

  • 2,650 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:24

Mercedes should get ****ed up with all this witch hunt, and withdarw entirely from the sport , including supply of Engines. Thne when we have Mclaren , Brawn and Force India out and have 14 cars on the grid. Max and Bernie should BEG for forgiveness.

#24 paulm

paulm
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:33

Originally posted by Craven Morehead
I would expect to see Ryan back on the job in a bit. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got a hefty bonus for falling on his sword when needed. :D


I find it funny that people interpret his suspension as falling on his sword or scapegoating.

I think he was suspended for his own benefit as much as anything else. If he remained at the track for the rest of the weekend he'd have been open to further questioning (both press and official) which would have, at best, been a huge distraction and at worst provided more opportunity for him to dig himself into a hole.

Similarly Lewis would have faced more distractions if he didn't have that press conference when he did.

They did what was necessary to enable them to focus on the race. Anything else could be dealt with later (let's face it, they'd done enough damage by pulling things out of their asses on the fly).

#25 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:55

Originally posted by Kelateboy
A 20pt WCC deduction is quite a minor punishment given the fact that McLaren is not yet in the running for WCC this year. Does it matter if McLaren finished with 80pt or 60pt for this season?

-KB


It's quite a major when you take into account that far greater crimes have happened on track with less punishment.

#26 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:39

Ryan was sent home from Malaysia. He's been publically flogged. He's paid the price.

He should now be allowed to return to his job and get on with things. This story will blow over...

...except for if the FIA get involved today. Which, knowing Max Mosley, they totally will.

I dread the decision of today. I really do.

There've been bigger lies in the history of Formula One. Like Michael Schumacher trying to claim his Monaco 2006 parking was a mistake. Even in front of the stewards. Or Toyota running illegal wings in Australian GP qualifying.

And anyone who has raced from karting upwards knows that you try and play a stewards hearing to your advantage. It is part of the game.

This is only a big deal because it is McLaren, who Mosley wants to destroy.

#27 taran

taran
  • Member

  • 1,821 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:50

I think we need to set some standards here.

Is it allowed to lie to officials?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position and get another driver thrown out of the points?
Does 30 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 20 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 10 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Just when can you get away with fraudulent behaviour?
Should Mercedes (or any other team) be allowed off the hook because it supplies several teams and its withdrawal would hurt F1?

If you feel the answers should be yes, I have more questions......

#28 Bob Nomates

Bob Nomates
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:50

I think the FIA have made a big mistake here,Ryan goes into the meeting and says
Ryan: we deserve 3rd, Trulli went off and Hamilton went in front coz of it, he didn't have to do that he could have stay behind Hamilton, but he did.
FIA: did you tell Hamilton so slow down and let Trulli by?
Ryan: forget that, Hamilton has been stiched up by you lot before.
FIA: answer the question please ryan
Ryan: No we didn't tell Trulli to speed up and overtake Hamilton, (wink wink, it was shit driving on Trulli's part that has caused this use your common sence man!)
FIA: ok we will study the rule books for a few days while we think of a way of stiching you up for asking us to investigate

Hamilton has never ever told a lie before he was totally upset and may now walk away from the sport forever!

#29 plg101

plg101
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:52

He is suspended... there will be a letter from HR somewhere saying something along the lines of;

"suspended from current duties on full pay, pending further enquiries; a further meeting will be arranged within x days, at which you are entitled to representation or a witness, etc etc"

Due process in UK law generally means your can't sack an employee on the spot, you have to go through the stated process of teh organisation - gather information, run the process objectively. 9/10 such a senior member would leave (rather than being fired) under a compromise agreement (eg, remainder of the years salary + shares, etc) which has a handy side benefit of being a contract in itself, and enables gagging clauses to be added. Oh, and you can prevent them working for the competition for a defined period (eg a year). Any other team on the grid would love to pick up his services, just for what he knows about the big macca.

The payout is a small price to pay to keep the employee quiet and save them ever saying anything in the press or spilling any beans... preventing further reputation loss. If you out and out fire them, you run the risk that they spill everything they know.

#30 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:54

Originally posted by taran
I think we need to set some standards here.

Is it allowed to lie to officials?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position and get another driver thrown out of the points?
Does 30 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 20 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 10 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Just when can you get away with fraudulent behaviour?
Should Mercedes (or any other team) be allowed off the hook because it supplies several teams and its withdrawal would hurt F1?

If you feel the answers should be yes, I have more questions......


They were not let off the hook. They received a punishment, so why should they be punished further?

#31 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:55

Originally posted by taran
I think we need to set some standards here...

If you feel the answers should be yes, I have more questions......


Schumacher did much worse throughout his career.

#32 Bob Nomates

Bob Nomates
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:55

Originally posted by taran
I think we need to set some standards here.

Is it allowed to lie to officials?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position?
Is it allowed to lie to officials to steal a position and get another driver thrown out of the points?
Does 30 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 20 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Does 10 years of employment excuse fraudulent behaviour?
Just when can you get away with fraudulent behaviour?
Should Mercedes (or any other team) be allowed off the hook because it supplies several teams and its withdrawal would hurt F1?

If you feel the answers should be yes, I have more questions......



Totally over the top!
The FIA should have just asked for the tapes in the first place, it's a bit like a policeman pulling someone over and asking them if they were speeding, and when they say no letting them off for it.
Realising their own mistake and deciding to check the reading on the speed gun and banning them from driving for lying. sad!

#33 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,491 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:55

Originally posted by Hotwheels
Mercedes should get ****ed up with all this witch hunt, and withdarw entirely from the sport , including supply of Engines. Thne when we have Mclaren , Brawn and Force India out and have 14 cars on the grid. Max and Bernie should BEG for forgiveness.


It is not as simple as that because of a little matter called contractual obligations.

#34 Bob Nomates

Bob Nomates
  • Member

  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 07 April 2009 - 08:56

Originally posted by potmotr


Schumacher did much worse throughout his career.


or better ;)

#35 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 07 April 2009 - 09:41

Originally posted by Bob Nomates


or better ;)


True true!

But my point is trying to maximise the potential of a steward's hearing isn't exactly new.

Teams and drivers have been doing it in all categories since motorsport began.

It is part of the game.

To suggest all teams in F1 are 100% honest with stewards is naive IMO.

For instance, when Ferrari were caught running illegal bargeboards at Malaysia in 1999 they (Ross Brawn at tyhe time) argued it was an innnocent production mistake.

That, in my view, was a complete lie.

#36 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:06

Originally posted by paulm
What happened with the Honda "hidden fuel tank" thingo?
Am I correct in saying that Honda representatives originally maintained that there was no fuel left in the car and the stewards had to get something to look inside to prove otherwise.



There is a normal standard procedure for draining the fuel out of a formula 1 car, that happens each time the 'dry' weight of the car needs to be determined. There is always some fuel remaining in hidden corners of the fuel tank. This is normal.

Scrutineer: "Drain the tank in the normal standard way."
Honda Guy: "ok".
[tank draining occurs, as normal]
Scrutineer: "Is that it?"
Honda guy: "Yes."

This standard procedure was carried out in the normal way with the Honda car, but after that, Honda were crucified because the FIA managed to get a vacuum cleaner and with some diligent sucking, get some extra fuel out of the car. This extra extraction of fuel has never before been performed, and never been performed since. It was a one off special for the Honda car on that day.

The FIA then proceeded to defame Honda in the media, referring to "secret compartments" in the standard fuel tank that a whole bunch of other teams also had. The FIA called the Honda team liars and cheaters because the fuel tank wasnt completely totally absolutely 100 percent empty.

Honda threatened to take this case to a real court, in the real world.
The FIA threatened to have then banned for as many years as it took to get a lengthy court case settled.
Honda backed down with tail between legs.

If the FIA are out to get you, there is nothing you can do about it.

#37 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:12

Originally posted by potmotr

But my point is trying to maximise the potential of a steward's hearing isn't exactly new.

Teams and drivers have been doing it in all categories since motorsport began.

It is part of the game.

To suggest all teams in F1 are 100% honest with stewards is naive IMO.

Leaving the example aside, this is 100% correct.

"The game's out there and it's play or get played"
- Omar Little

#38 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:13

Originally posted by alfa1
The FIA then proceeded to defame Honda in the media, referring to "secret compartments" in the standard fuel tank that a whole bunch of other teams also had.

The other teams had the same compartment as Honda did, but did not count the fuel in that compartment towards establishing the minimum weight of the car.

As for the comparison to the BAR case, it's pretty scary for McLaren. BAR were excluded from the race in question, suspended for 2 further races and were given a further 6 month suspension that was suspended for one year. And all this despite the ICA concluding that "it is not possible for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud".

#39 plg101

plg101
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:19

Originally posted by Gareth

The other teams had the same compartment as Honda did, but did not count the fuel in that compartment towards establishing the minimum weight of the car.

As for the comparison to the BAR case, it's pretty scary for McLaren. BAR were excluded from the race in question, suspended for 2 further races and were given a further 6 month suspension that was suspended for one year. And all this despite the ICA concluding that "it is not possible for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud".


Yup - and I always got the feeling that the stewards were very canny - they basically got BAR to incriminate themselves, and at a wild guess, they had been tipped off about the fuel tank.

My guess is:

Best case: £1m fine, 1 year suspended ban

Mid case: £hefty fine, 3 race ban

Worst case: DQ's from the constructors championship (but not drivers) + 1yr suspended ban concurrent with the DQ

Advertisement

#40 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:19

Originally posted by Gareth

The other teams had the same compartment as Honda did, but did not count the fuel in that compartment towards establishing the minimum weight of the car.

That's right...but... the LIE. It's the lie which is key to this point and it may have been key to the three race Honda ban. The FIA made a seriously big deal about what they perceived as being lied to. I honestly can't recall whether some or all of the punishment was for the lie or the different reading of the weight rules.

#41 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:19

Originally posted by Gareth

The other teams had the same compartment as Honda did, but did not count the fuel in that compartment towards establishing the minimum weight of the car.


How do you know this when these other cars were never subjected to the same testing?

#42 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:24

Originally posted by Buttoneer
That's right...but... the LIE. It's the lie which is key to this point and it may have been key to the three race Honda ban. The FIA made a seriously big deal about what they perceived as being lied to. I honestly can't recall whether some or all of the punishment was for the lie or the different reading of the weight rules.

I don't think they found that there was a lie, but they definitely concluded that the "that's it" statement demonstrated a serious lack of transparacy. I think it was that statement combined with the fact that their breach was (in the FIA's opinion and, TBH, in mine) so utterly obvious as to be difficult to be seen as anything other than deliberate (rather than unintentional, based on a different (but viable) interpretation) cheating, that led to the harshness of the punishment.

There is no delineation in the decision between punishments stemming from the offence itself and punishments for the lack of transparecy. As I mention above, I think the FIA saw the two issues combined.

#43 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:26

Originally posted by Clatter


How do you know this when these other cars were never subjected to the same testing?

I believe the other teams stated surprise at the approach BAR was taking, and there was virtually no sympathy within the paddock for what happened to them because no one else considered using BAR's approach. I think it was even suggested that the FIA acted on a tip off from another team.

Got to concede your point that there is no definitive evidence, but I think everything pointed towards BAR being the only team that did this.

#44 plg101

plg101
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:30

It is the lie...

Remember as a kid, there was always more trouble to be had from your parents from lying to them than from the original mischief.

Similar in a court of law.

PCOJ (perverting the course of justice) carries a very heavy penalty - the original crime can be quite minor, but lying to the authorities is not minor.

Now the FIA is a quasi-judicial environment but they take a lot of their ethics from the regular legal system, and have a lot of very intelligent barristers and lawyers...

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:36

Originally posted by Gareth

I believe the other teams stated surprise at the approach BAR was taking, and there was virtually no sympathy within the paddock for what happened to them because no one else considered using BAR's approach. I think it was even suggested that the FIA acted on a tip off from another team.

Got to concede your point that there is no definitive evidence, but I think everything pointed towards BAR being the only team that did this.


IMHO everyone should have been subjected to the same checks. Easy to point fingers when no one is looking at you, but I think there could have been several teams in the poo had the stewards done so. Still it's water under the bridge now.

#46 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,686 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:37

Originally posted by plg101
It is the lie...

Remember as a kid, there was always more trouble to be had from your parents from lying to them than from the original mischief.

Similar in a court of law.

PCOJ (perverting the course of justice) carries a very heavy penalty - the original crime can be quite minor, but lying to the authorities is not minor.

Now the FIA is a quasi-judicial environment but they take a lot of their ethics from the regular legal system, and have a lot of very intelligent barristers and lawyers...


But normally in a court of law you are not tried for the same crime twice.

#47 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:40

Originally posted by Gareth

I don't think they found that there was a lie, but they definitely concluded that the "that's it" statement demonstrated a serious lack of transparacy.

For which they received a 151c penalty according to this.

Giving a new RULING,

DECLARES and RULES that the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team failed to comply with Articles 1.9, 4.1, 4.2, 2.6 of the Sporting Regulations and also violates Article 151-c of the International Sporting Code,

EXCLUDES Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the event in question,

SUSPENDS the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the next two events in the FIA Formula One Championship,

SUSPENDS the team for a period of six months after the above-mentioned two events, with this penalty suspended for a period of one year,

Not sure which part of the punishment is for 151c but certainly there's no $100m fine or 1 year ban in there.

Did Dave Ryan and lewis demonstrate a serious lack of transparency or did they out and out lie? Hamilton maintains he didn't 'lie' and Whitmarsh maintains that Ryan didn't tell everything. Where's the dividing line?

#48 paulm

paulm
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:43

Originally posted by Gareth
As for the comparison to the BAR case, it's pretty scary for McLaren. BAR were excluded from the race in question, suspended for 2 further races and were given a further 6 month suspension that was suspended for one year. And all this despite the ICA concluding that "it is not possible for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud".


Ouch.

I think an actual long term suspension is unlikely.

The FIA might not give a crap about McLaren but actually stopping a team from racing could spook sponsors for every team. Especially in the current financial conditions, showing them that their rather expensive mobile bill boards might not be on display is hardly going to engender confidence. No doubt they'd have some protection in their contracts but even so it might make some avoid the sport entirely.

If there is further punishment I think it will be target to effect the McLaren team without hurting others, including the drivers.

#49 plg101

plg101
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:43

Originally posted by Clatter


But normally in a court of law you are not tried for the same crime twice.


Er, yes you are, at least under UK law.

Example (picked quickly, and nothing to do with this thread or sport) http://en.wikipedia..../Karen_Matthews

Another example: You leave the scene of an accident that you cause without reporting it, or waiting for the police. You later give a false statement that it was your friend in California (who doesn't exist or wasn't involved). The police will go after you for both the original crime and PCOJ.

#50 plg101

plg101
  • Member

  • 60 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:44

Originally posted by paulm


Ouch.

I think an actual long term suspension is unlikely.

The FIA might not give a crap about McLaren but actually stopping a team from racing could spook sponsors for every team. Especially in the current financial conditions, showing them that their rather expensive mobile bill boards might not be on display is hardly going to engender confidence. No doubt they'd have some protection in their contracts but even so it might make some avoid the sport entirely.

If there is further punishment I think it will be target to effect the McLaren team without hurting others, including the drivers.


Which would then further support the FIAs driver towards a £30m budget cap...