FIA Decision
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Nothing about the FIA makes sense I guess...
Eccelsone talking, 2 quotes above:
"If Ferrari think the wrong decision has been made they have every right to appeal and I think they will."
Quote from post above:
a spokesman for Ferrari on Monday confirmed that FIA rules do not allow an appeal to be sought.
WTF- does anybody at the FIA actually know what they are doing or how it is they are supposed to do the pathetic job they are assigned???
Eccelsone talking, 2 quotes above:
"If Ferrari think the wrong decision has been made they have every right to appeal and I think they will."
Quote from post above:
a spokesman for Ferrari on Monday confirmed that FIA rules do not allow an appeal to be sought.
WTF- does anybody at the FIA actually know what they are doing or how it is they are supposed to do the pathetic job they are assigned???
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Originally Posted by Nabs 79,Jul 30 2007, 11:37 AM
I think Ferrari should be suspended for being Ferrari.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Interesting how some of the F1 web sites vote what ya think results are revealing...
Posession of secret Ferrari material by McLaren means...
McLaren is guilty and should be punished
134 64.7%
Nothing, McLaren didn't do anything with it
35 16.9%
Is dubiuos, should be investigated further
25 12.1%
McLaren is guilty, but no further steps are needed
13 6.3%
Posession of secret Ferrari material by McLaren means...
McLaren is guilty and should be punished
134 64.7%
Nothing, McLaren didn't do anything with it
35 16.9%
Is dubiuos, should be investigated further
25 12.1%
McLaren is guilty, but no further steps are needed
13 6.3%
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 22,863
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by Triple-H,Jul 30 2007, 12:55 PM
Sad but true...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Finally some good news...
See Bernie, not only does Ferrari want answers, some of the other honorable teams want justice also. with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor...
Mosley agrees to re-open McLaren spy case
FIA president Max Mosley on Tuesday agreed to send the espionage case against McLaren to the governing body's Court of Appeal. Following the written request of Ferrari's national sanctioning organisation, the Automobile Club d'Italia (ACI), Mosley said it was right to further investigate the case because Ferrari had not been allowed to present evidence in last Thursday's hearing of the World Motor Sport Council.
McLaren in Paris was found to be in breach of clause 151c of the International Sporting Code but was not penalised, which in ACI president Luigi Macaluso's view is "quite difficult to justify".
He claimed that "several top team representatives" of McLaren knew about chief designer Mike Coughlan's espionage activities over several months, but that Ferrari had been unable to counter McLaren's defence that no employee besides Coughlan knew about the 780-pages of secret information.
In a written reply to Macaluso, who after the Paris hearing had also verbally questioned the FIA's decision, Mosley said probing the matter further was also important for "public confidence in the outcome".
He wrote: "I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal ... with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not substitute such other decision as may be just."
www.f1complete.com/
FIA president Max Mosley on Tuesday agreed to send the espionage case against McLaren to the governing body's Court of Appeal. Following the written request of Ferrari's national sanctioning organisation, the Automobile Club d'Italia (ACI), Mosley said it was right to further investigate the case because Ferrari had not been allowed to present evidence in last Thursday's hearing of the World Motor Sport Council.
McLaren in Paris was found to be in breach of clause 151c of the International Sporting Code but was not penalised, which in ACI president Luigi Macaluso's view is "quite difficult to justify".
He claimed that "several top team representatives" of McLaren knew about chief designer Mike Coughlan's espionage activities over several months, but that Ferrari had been unable to counter McLaren's defence that no employee besides Coughlan knew about the 780-pages of secret information.
In a written reply to Macaluso, who after the Paris hearing had also verbally questioned the FIA's decision, Mosley said probing the matter further was also important for "public confidence in the outcome".
He wrote: "I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal ... with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not substitute such other decision as may be just."
www.f1complete.com/
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
here's the letter:
Dear Mr Macaluso
Thank you for your letter of 30 July
If, as you suggest, it were clear that several of McLaren's top team representatives were aware of the Ferrari information over a period of several months, the situation would indeed be very serious.
Apart from using Ferrari's technical knowledge to give the McLaren cars an illegitimate advantage over the entire field, detailed knowledge of Ferrari's technical strategies would give McLaren significant and unfair advantages over Ferrari at every race.
However McLaren's case was that, except for a tip-off in March and a drawing shown briefly to a colleague as a historical curiosity, no one at McLaren knew of or had access to any of that information. According to McLaren, it was acquired privately by a disgruntled employee who intended to leave. They inferred he never used Ferrari's information to help McLaren because it was part of his private database as technical director for another team.
There are a number of suspicious elements, all of which the World Motor Sport Council took into account when reaching its decision. For example: the claim that the tip-off was the only information that passed in March; the failure to inform Ferrari of a spy when negotiating an agreement based on mutual trust; the installation of a "firewall" at McLaren to stop Stepney communicating, with no attempt at a similar block on Coughlan's private computers; McLaren's agreement to Coughlan travelling to Barcelona "to ask Stepney to stop communicating" rather than simply phone him; the fact that, far from ceasing communication, Coughlan returned from Barcelona with a vast quantity of Ferrari data; the failure to make clear what Coughlan was working on at McLaren while in possession of the data; Jonathan Neale's advice to Coughlan to destroy the documents, without knowing or wanting to know what they were and so on.
However, these suspicions did not amount to proof to the standard the Council felt was necessary in order to reject the evidence of McLaren's Team Principal and Managing Director and convict the team of an offence so grave as in all probability to warrant the exclusion from the Championship. In the absence of unambiguous evidence that McLaren as a team had received and used the Ferrari information, the Council was left with McLaren's responsibility for its employee. Exclusion or withdrawal of points did not seem appropriate if it was really just a case of a rogue employee illegitimately acquiring information for his own purposes.
Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered.
Because of this and the importance of public confidence in the outcome, I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal under article 23.1 of the FIA Statues with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not, substitute such other decision as may be just.
Yours sincerely,
Max Mosley.
CC: Mr Ron Dennis Mr Jean Todt
Dear Mr Macaluso
Thank you for your letter of 30 July
If, as you suggest, it were clear that several of McLaren's top team representatives were aware of the Ferrari information over a period of several months, the situation would indeed be very serious.
Apart from using Ferrari's technical knowledge to give the McLaren cars an illegitimate advantage over the entire field, detailed knowledge of Ferrari's technical strategies would give McLaren significant and unfair advantages over Ferrari at every race.
However McLaren's case was that, except for a tip-off in March and a drawing shown briefly to a colleague as a historical curiosity, no one at McLaren knew of or had access to any of that information. According to McLaren, it was acquired privately by a disgruntled employee who intended to leave. They inferred he never used Ferrari's information to help McLaren because it was part of his private database as technical director for another team.
There are a number of suspicious elements, all of which the World Motor Sport Council took into account when reaching its decision. For example: the claim that the tip-off was the only information that passed in March; the failure to inform Ferrari of a spy when negotiating an agreement based on mutual trust; the installation of a "firewall" at McLaren to stop Stepney communicating, with no attempt at a similar block on Coughlan's private computers; McLaren's agreement to Coughlan travelling to Barcelona "to ask Stepney to stop communicating" rather than simply phone him; the fact that, far from ceasing communication, Coughlan returned from Barcelona with a vast quantity of Ferrari data; the failure to make clear what Coughlan was working on at McLaren while in possession of the data; Jonathan Neale's advice to Coughlan to destroy the documents, without knowing or wanting to know what they were and so on.
However, these suspicions did not amount to proof to the standard the Council felt was necessary in order to reject the evidence of McLaren's Team Principal and Managing Director and convict the team of an offence so grave as in all probability to warrant the exclusion from the Championship. In the absence of unambiguous evidence that McLaren as a team had received and used the Ferrari information, the Council was left with McLaren's responsibility for its employee. Exclusion or withdrawal of points did not seem appropriate if it was really just a case of a rogue employee illegitimately acquiring information for his own purposes.
Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered.
Because of this and the importance of public confidence in the outcome, I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal under article 23.1 of the FIA Statues with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not, substitute such other decision as may be just.
Yours sincerely,
Max Mosley.
CC: Mr Ron Dennis Mr Jean Todt