Jump to content


Photo

Matt Bishop and McLaren


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#201 MickyD

MickyD
  • Member

  • 66 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:11

Well said Orin, excellent post. Surely now even Kar must appreciate how Renault have escaped. Of course, Flav's relationship with Max and Bernie would have helped. Come on Kar, admit it - the FIA's handling of all of this has been an utter farce (as usual)

Advertisement

#202 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:23

Originally posted by kar


And 'dodgy' is similar to a team having the entire blue prints to a rival (it's chief and faster rival at that) current year's car how exactly?

What exactly is your specific point relevant to? That because some teams do dodgy stuff it's actually okay then if you have another team's car's blueprints?



If McLaren had the "entire blueprints", you have to wonder why anyone had to ask Stepney about the wheelbase, or the brake balance lever, instead of just looking it up.

#203 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:26

Originally posted by undersquare



If McLaren had the "entire blueprints", you have to wonder why anyone had to ask Stepney about the wheelbase, or the brake balance lever, instead of just looking it up.


LOL, yes 780 pages is about the same as the plans you get in the LEGO f1 car kit...

#204 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:33

I thought the similarities between the first McLaren WMSC hearing and Renault's was that although they were both found to have been in receipt of another teams IP, there was insufficient evidence that information in their respective possession had been "used" to gain an advantage in sporting terms. Both however were found to be guilty in relation to the sporting code of conduct.

The second McLaren hearing came about partially based on information supplied by Alonso and Pedro De La Rosa, that there was at least the intention to test out some of the information supplied by Coughlan in testing simulators etc. So the second judgement went against McLaren because there was evidence of the team trying to use information to gain an advantage.

From what I can garner looking at the information was not considered in the purest sense as "using" it, but when you cross over the boundary and start talking about testing some of it out....then your appearing to utilise it to gain an advantage. And I suppose the WMSC felt there was no smoke without fire. Also we don't have access to the data and information supplied to the WMSC, so we can only surmise on it based on the transcript.

In Renault's case there was insufficient evidence found (and I know some will argue whose fault that was) that the team were intending to utilise the information in the same way that McLaren had. That doesn't mean it didn't exist or even happen, but I feel where Renault got off compared to McLaren is they came clean about it from the start having seen the repurcussions of not doing so in the case with McLaren.

#205 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:42

Originally posted by MickyD
Well said Orin, excellent post. Surely now even Kar must appreciate how Renault have escaped. Of course, Flav's relationship with Max and Bernie would have helped. Come on Kar, admit it - the FIA's handling of all of this has been an utter farce (as usual)

Why would he admit it when it is clearly not the case. If you read his posts he explains it all very clearly and asks for any evidence-based rebuttals rather than arguments along the line of it is "because it is..."

McLarens treatment leading up to and at hearing 1 was pretty much identical to renaults leading up to and at their hearing. Be very interested in any evidence that this was not the case.

Both cases would have stopped there had
- the injured party (ferrari) not complained again in the mac case and forced an appeal
- new evidence not come to light which caused the council to be recalled as was promised in both initial hearings

As neither of these things happened in the renault case, no furthjer action was taken. At the first hearings in BOT cases, the team said "We did nothing wrong" despite strong evidence to the contrary. In both cases the council bent over backwards to let them off with a warning that they better not be seen there again.

NOTE please the evidence that forced the second Mac hearing did not come as a result of FIA investigations but as a result of unsolicited approaches to the FIA (Max) from various members of the F1 community.

Given that, I fail to see any basis for your ludicrous assertions. If anything it Mac got off lightest as vertually all parts of their "punishment" have been watered down by get-out clauses and behind-the-scenes deals. Added to that, especially given McLaren's aversion to the truth - we still have no idea exactly how much Ferrari IP went into the design of the McLaren this year.

#206 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:45

Originally posted by Chiara

In Renault's case there was insufficient evidence found (and I know some will argue whose fault that was) that the team were intending to utilise the information in the same way that McLaren had. That doesn't mean it didn't exist or even happen, but I feel where Renault got off compared to McLaren is they came clean about it from the start having seen the repurcussions of not doing so in the case with McLaren.


Thats probably true - though worth noting that even seeing what had happened to McLaren, McLaren still didnt come clean. Even then. And they think they were hard done by? Jeeeez.

#207 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:47

Originally posted by undersquare



If McLaren had the "entire blueprints", you have to wonder why anyone had to ask Stepney about the wheelbase, or the brake balance lever, instead of just looking it up.


:lol:

An excellent riposte!

#208 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:51

Originally posted by undersquare



If McLaren had the "entire blueprints", you have to wonder why anyone had to ask Stepney about the wheelbase, or the brake balance lever, instead of just looking it up.


Maybe in response Stepney brought the blueprints to save Coughlan's some pennys on his phonebill? :-)

It's 40p per international text with Vodafone remember? All those texts must have been costing Coughlan a packet!.

Easier to just let him grab that big packet of pages in the back of the hire car after that Barca test rather than responding to every request for facts n figures!

#209 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,551 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 10 March 2008 - 16:51

Originally posted by Chiara

In Renault's case there was insufficient evidence found (and I know some will argue whose fault that was) that the team were intending to utilise the information in the same way that McLaren had.


That argument was more or less defaulted by the FIA which stressed on number of occasions that intent of and successful use is more or less insignificant, the fact that the data was allowed in without informing the FIA and the damaged party pretty much upon receipt supposedly was sufficient. It was for all intents and purposes shown that Renault stalled for almost a calendar year and really only supposedly cooperated after having been exposed.

#210 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:08

Originally posted by undersquare



If McLaren had the "entire blueprints", you have to wonder why anyone had to ask Stepney about the wheelbase, or the brake balance lever, instead of just looking it up.


and there you have one more reason why the two cases where different.
Renault had only access to data that could fit on 18 floppy-disks (1.4 MB each) whereas Mclaren had 780 pages of Ferrari IP PLUS real time data from Stephney to Mclaren via Coulghan. Pedro was caught telling Alonso that "the mole" was giving them information about Ferrari on race weekends. The SMSs between the two proves this. This was strong evidence presented at the hearing for which Mclaren had no convincing answer to.

#211 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:09

Originally posted by Oho


That argument was more or less defaulted by the FIA which stressed on number of occasions that intent of and successful use is more or less insignificant, the fact that the data was allowed in without informing the FIA and the damaged party pretty much upon receipt supposedly was sufficient. It was for all intents and purposes shown that Renault stalled for almost a calendar year and really only supposedly cooperated after having been exposed.

Which was different from mclaren as they didnt cooperate before being exposed or after.

#212 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:15

Originally posted by kar


Maybe in response Stepney brought the blueprints to save Coughlan's some pennys on his phonebill? :-)

It's 40p per international text with Vodafone remember? All those texts must have been costing Coughlan a packet!.

Easier to just let him grab that big packet of pages in the back of the hire car after that Barca test rather than responding to every request for facts n figures!


You're completely wrong there, kar....Vodafone are the title sponsor, I don't suppose McLaren staff phones come with a huge monthly bill like the rest of us get :lol:

But seriously, your argument about the cost of texts is a fine wriggle but the wrong way round - if the dossier had been inside McLaren that's what would have been referrred to, for free and conveniently on a desk, not "the mole" whether at 40p a go or otherwise.

#213 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:27

Originally posted by BMW_F1


and there you have one more reason why the two cases where different.
Renault had only access to data that could fit on 18 floppy-disks (1.4 MB each) whereas Mclaren had 780 pages of Ferrari IP PLUS real time data from Stephney to Mclaren via Coulghan. Pedro was caught telling Alonso that "the mole" was giving them information about Ferrari on race weekends. The SMSs between the two proves this. This was strong evidence presented at the hearing for which Mclaren had no convincing answer to.


Look, it's natural to get polarised on this, but I am not arguing that McLaren were innocent or that Renault were equally guilty. There were differences. But my argument is that the differences were not 100:0 like the fines.

For me McLaren were offered insider information and accepted it, it was opportunism not a policy of cheating that makes them less moral than the other teams. It's easy to say "they should have told Ferrari", but in reality what other teams would have done that? Only Coughlan was in touch with Stepney, and he fed information into McLaren at one remove. The dossier was another project for him entirely, nothing to do with McLaren. So it was wrong, and it deserved to be punished with a deterrent fine, but $100m was far bigger than it needed to be for that, it was intended, by Max, to smash Ron - or as close as he could come when the WMSC balked at the 2-year ban he asked for. And $0 for Renault was to rub his nose it it.

#214 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:27

I just was making fun, I don't know what you base your assumption that Coughlan had to text Stepney for the wheelbase though? Where did you get that from?

#215 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:42

Originally posted by undersquare


Look, it's natural to get polarised on this, but I am not arguing that McLaren were innocent or that Renault were equally guilty. There were differences. But my argument is that the differences were not 100:0 like the fines.

For me McLaren were offered insider information and accepted it, it was opportunism not a policy of cheating that makes them less moral than the other teams. It's easy to say "they should have told Ferrari", but in reality what other teams would have done that? Only Coughlan was in touch with Stepney, and he fed information into McLaren at one remove. The dossier was another project for him entirely, nothing to do with McLaren. So it was wrong, and it deserved to be punished with a deterrent fine, but $100m was far bigger than it needed to be for that, it was intended, by Max, to smash Ron - or as close as he could come when the WMSC balked at the 2-year ban he asked for. And $0 for Renault was to rub his nose it it.



Mclaren was also found guilty in the first hearing but fined $0. oh and they lied and kept the communication open with Stepney despite what they had gone through in the first hearing..

#216 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:46

Originally posted by BMW_F1



Mclaren was also found guilty in the first hearing but fined $0. oh and they lied and kept the communication open with Stepney despite what they had gone through in the first hearing..


To be fair to McLaren, I'm pretty certain the communication between Stepney and Coughlan would have ended when Coughlan's home was raided. It certainly wouldn't have gone on past Stepney getting dismissed by Ferrari, as his access to information then would have been terminated. Both of these events occurred prior to the first WMSC meeting.

#217 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 10 March 2008 - 17:50

Flavio:

#218 steelyman

steelyman
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 18:06

Originally posted by undersquare


Look, it's natural to get polarised on this, but I am not arguing that McLaren were innocent or that Renault were equally guilty. There were differences. But my argument is that the differences were not 100:0 like the fines.




I agree with your whole 1st paragraph except the last sentence which is just our opinion really. There were differences and similarities in the cases but the penalties are not drawn from the facts only but from facts, max's agenda, bernie's agenda, good of the sport, etc. Of course these factors are not all equal in proportion. So i think i mostly agree with you on this and i think most others do as well.


Originally posted by undersquare

For me McLaren were offered insider information and accepted it, - True

it was opportunism not a policy of cheating that makes them less moral than the other teams. - True, definitely not a policy of cheating and they are absolutely no less moral than the other teams

It's easy to say "they should have told Ferrari", but in reality what other teams would have done that? - They definitely should have done this(my opinion only) if they really put the good of the sport above all they would have and especially because of the agreement b/t Ron and Todt. If not for the agreement no i dont think others teams would do that and i would not either

Only Coughlan was in touch with Stepney, - True

and he fed information into McLaren at one remove. - Do you mean just one time - im not sure i understand what you mean here. but there was the transfer of some paperwork and also the sms messages

The dossier was another project for him entirely, nothing to do with McLaren. - Not sure what you mean here

So it was wrong, and it deserved to be punished with a deterrent fine, -True, i agree

but $100m was far bigger than it needed to be for that, - This is where i think the other factors come into play here - not just the acts of coughlin but also the actions of Ron/Mclaren throughout the process and peoples opinions will vary about the dollar amount

it was intended, by Max, to smash Ron - or as close as he could come when the WMSC balked at the 2-year ban he asked for. And $0 for Renault was to rub his nose it it.


For the last sentence - i think we disagree here the most but there are not really facts to present here only opinions. Mine is that Max does not want to smash Ron- that is convenient for theories but he really cant do that in front of the whole wmsc and whole world and get away with it. its easy to see things like that. Renault got $0 like Mac did the first time and no big deal there. Mac like you said had to get some type of punishment and got the monetary fine. the fine like has been stated before is not as bad as people make it out to be. they have the money and will pay it. will it slow their cars down? - i dont think so. they look to be in very strong form now and i dont see them going backwards. if we saw them move back to even 4th or even 3rd place this year i may think different about that. it was not a slap on the wrist but also was not a back breaker and definitely wont affect them on track. - could have been much worse really.

#219 HSJ

HSJ
  • Member

  • 14,002 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 10 March 2008 - 18:49

Originally posted by Mika Mika
Personally i think the FIA should do a spot chack of all 11 teams, I bet they would find that all of them including Ferrari, McLaren, Renault etc etc etc. ALL without exception are doing lots of stuff either wrong dodgy or at best not in the spirit of the rules.


Of course. But it doesn't change the fact that there are different degrees of transgressions. Same penalty for murder and shoplifting, eh? Does anyone here honestly believe that most teams routinely do what McLaren did last year?

Advertisement

#220 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 18:54

Originally posted by kar
I just was making fun, I don't know what you base your assumption that Coughlan had to text Stepney for the wheelbase though? Where did you get that from?


Para 55 of the FIA Tech Dept report of the 6th December hearing a McLaren senior engineer in an email to a colleague - "did [the wheelbase figure] come from photos or our mole?"

If it had come directly from the dossier, he would have said from...the drawing/spec/dossier or whatever. But it came direct from the mole Stepney. In fact if the dossier had had a dimensioned layout and been around in the team, they wouldn't have been having that conversation anyway, he would just have had a look.

#221 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 19:08

Originally posted by BMW_F1



Mclaren was also found guilty in the first hearing but fined $0. oh and they lied and kept the communication open with Stepney despite what they had gone through in the first hearing..


That's the impression that was created, but even at the December hearing no emails were cited later than April.

The basis of the $0 at the July hearing was that there was no evidence that the dossier had gone beyond Coughlan's personal private possession into the team, bar briefly being shown and being told to get rid of it. The conviction was purely theoretical, that Coughlan was an employee of the team. That is not the same as Renault where the data was in the drawing office.

#222 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 19:52

Originally posted by undersquare


Para 55 of the FIA Tech Dept report of the 6th December hearing a McLaren senior engineer in an email to a colleague - "did [the wheelbase figure] come from photos or our mole?"

If it had come directly from the dossier, he would have said from...the drawing/spec/dossier or whatever. But it came direct from the mole Stepney. In fact if the dossier had had a dimensioned layout and been around in the team, they wouldn't have been having that conversation anyway, he would just have had a look.


And said dossier came from who? Tom Brokaw? I.e. if engineer a had gleaned the information from that dossier his response would of course be 'yes' from 'our mole'.

Incriminating enough of a phrase to be using anyway don't you think? :)

#223 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 20:17

Originally posted by kar


And said dossier came from who? Tom Brokaw? I.e. if engineer a had gleaned the information from that dossier his response would of course be 'yes' from 'our mole'.

Incriminating enough of a phrase to be using anyway don't you think? :)


I don't think they would refer to the dossier as a mole.

#224 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 10 March 2008 - 20:35

Originally posted by undersquare


I don't think they would refer to the dossier as a mole.


Now we all _know_ you're just being obtuse. :down:

#225 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 March 2008 - 20:56

Originally posted by kar


Now we all _know_ you're just being obtuse. :down:



You said "if engineer a had gleaned the information from that dossier his response would of course be 'yes' from 'our mole'."

If he had got the wheelbase from a dossier, he'd have said "yes, from the dossier". Wouldn't he?

He said "mole" because it was a mole, not a dossier. The dossier was not in McLaren, that's why they had to ask for the wheelbase.

It's obvious to anyone whose mind is not closed.

#226 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,224 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 March 2008 - 00:04

Originally posted by Mika Mika


LOL, yes 780 pages is about the same as the plans you get in the LEGO f1 car kit...

The Williams I did assemble had a few pages, that was about it.