Susie only joined this year, so it has nothing to do with the cost cap leak.
Interestingly the FIA is investigating a FOM employee and a team boss. It might also be a result of the tension between FOM and FIA over the Andretti entry.
This is laughable, conflict of interest or leaking of info between a team Boss and a FOM employee? Why is the FIA investigating and not FOM? Isnt the FIA overeaching their remit?
Soalar wrote: ↑05 Dec 2023, 20:19Really curious to see how this plays out.
When they hired Susie it was simply a question of time. You cannot be in a relationship and not talk about your job. Unfortunately Toto then selfsnitched infront of the other team principles.
If this all turns out to be true, I think he will get the Flavio treatment.
Mercedes also responds to the FIA with its own statement
The more I think about it the more this feels like Wolffs/Merc just getting caught in the crossfire of FIA vs FOMWe note the generic statement from the FIA this evening, which responds to unsubstantiated allegations from a single media outlet, and the off-record briefing which has linked it to the Team Principal of Mercedes-AMG F1.
The Team has received no communication from the FIA Compliance Department on this topic and it was highly surprising to learn of the investigation through a media statement.
We wholly reject the allegation in the statement and associated media coverage, which wrongly impinges on the integrity and compliance of our Team Principal.
As a matter of course, we invite full, prompt, and transparent correspondence from the FIA Compliance Department regarding this investigation and its contents.
As others have mentioned, Toto is unlikely to face anything. If you're a participant of a meeting, even a secret meeting, you're still entitled to talk about what's on that meeting as long as you were a part of it. I very much doubt the teams have signed an NDA between each other for those meetings.
If someone at FOM is potentially compromising the integrity of the competition, then the FIA has a duty to investigate it. FOM can coorporate with the investigation, or run their own investigation alongside it.
I think you'll find that's not strictly true.Edax wrote: ↑05 Dec 2023, 22:34I would not say that is a given. Many people have to hold secrets which they are not allowed to share with partners.
- For instance in business handling stock sensitive information
- Medical professionals handling personal files
- People in law enforcement dealing with open investigations and suspects
I think you’ll find most of them are perfectly capable of not discussing these items at home.
I think you, and some other people, misunderstand the degree of information being leaked here. It's not necessarily "confidential" information - it's just information that people didn't intend to get out early through gossip. So informally secret information.Edax wrote: ↑05 Dec 2023, 22:34I don’t know about this one. If it is true then it would be such a blatant disregard of professionalism, that I cannot imagine both continue working in racing.
But that consequence is so obvious that I cannot imagine they would have risked that. Certainly since there seems to be little gain.
Not necessarily true. From what i understand, that's a reference to BusinessF1, who wrote the original article.
Ahhh, it just seems a very odd/strange statement to make/release really. It almost seems a deflection to what is actually happening and the investigation is about. Ive no idea what other articles or things that businessF1 page has wrote about previously.TFSA wrote: ↑06 Dec 2023, 00:25Not necessarily true. From what i understand, that's a reference to BusinessF1, who wrote the original article.
Apparently - and i haven't double checked this, so this is the word on the streets - BusinessF1 has made previous articles with misogynistic leanings, including suggesting Female F1 prospects should date the male drivers, and has suggested that they should work to look as attractive as possible in order to boost the sport.
Both can be true at the same time.
It all seems a little strange to me.TFSA wrote: ↑06 Dec 2023, 00:38Both can be true at the same time.
I gotta say, looking back at the BusinessF1 article, while i can't really pinpoint anything in the text itself that's misogynistic by skimming it, the choice of picture of a clearly younger Susie (i assume that's her) is obviously playing to an angle as the "Gossip mistress" or "Evil maid" so to speak. Not really a professional choice of picture.