Pirelli's motorsport director Paul Hembery has repeated at Korea that F1's sole tyre suppliers need to have more relevant tyre testing if it is to develop solid and reliable tyres for the 2014 season.
Here he says otherwise..ecapox wrote: Also nico now says he knew exactly what tires he was testing...contrary to pirelli's statements...
http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorspor ... 09812.html
Sky SportsNico Rosberg has reiterated that Mercedes learned nothing from their Barcelona tyre test and that Pirelli had complete control of the running.
If the FIA were confident it gave Mercedes an okay - they'd be no Tribunal - only a cursory press release and a 'nothing to see here'.SiLo wrote:If Mercedes have confirmation from the FIA then what can actually be done?
I have seen this as well, but if the FIA gave Merc permission to blatantly disregard the sporting regs, surely that opens a can of worms. If I ran a competing team, I would then expect the FIA to allow my team to disregard the sporting regs whenever it might help me.FoxHound wrote:Publicly, this is what the FIA have stated.Pierce89 wrote:Well to be fair the FIA gave clearance only if all teams could participate.
However, we are not privy to what has been sent to Mercedes. Just this past hour, Mercedes have issued a statement welcoming the chance to give their side of the story.
http://www.pitpass.com/49200-Mercedes-w ... -tribunal?
The important bit to me is the question whether the test was run by Mercedes who are a competitor or by Pirelli, who are not under the IT's jurisdiction. That is going to be a most crucial question the IT will probably have to answer.The Barcelona test – from a legal perspective
The legalities of matters in F1 can appear to be dry and boring, but one thing they do is cut through the noise of a situation. The legalities have no concern with loaded statements, emotive language, labels, press releases and vague notions of morality. They look at whether rules have been broken based on what the evidence says. I have never particularly liked the use of the word 'loophole', which suggests that someone is finding a way through the Regulations, when in fact all they are really doing is applying a legitimate interpretation that nobody else has figured out. This has never been more evident than in the controversy to hit F1 surrounding the test involving Pirelli and Mercedes.
To begin with the FIA cannot just impose penalties or order parties to act how it sees fit, but is bound by the process outlined in the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules. In much the same way as a normal legal matter, they must investigate, lay charges and prosecute the matter to the International Tribunal, an independent body who will adjudicate the matter and decide if there has been a breach based on the evidence and, if so, what punishment should be handed down, pursuant to the options available to them: fines, bans, deductions of points, exclusions, suspensions and disqualifications. The FIA has so far completed its Disciplinary Inquiry, which amounts to the investigation, and decided that the matter should go to the International Tribunal, where it will be considered whether Mercedes have breached any of the various governing Regulations, Statutes and/or the International Sporting Code.
These Rules in their current form were set up in 2010 in the aftermath of the race-fixing matter at Singapore 2008. Flavio Briatore took the judgement of the WMSC that banned him from the sport to the French courts where the courts highlighted the shortcomings of the FIA's adjudication process, pointing out that due process as regards a fair trial was not adhered to. It should be noted that Formula 1 is not a closed loop divorced from the broader world: this matter, as any other, can be pursued to the French courts should the parties involved be unhappy with the outcome. The FIA and International Tribunal will therefore be conscious of the process and recognise that any outcome has to be procedurally sound.
In this context, the line between Mercedes and Pirelli must be kept distinct, as opposed to the blurriness that has surrounded this matter. Mercedes as a competitor are governed by the FIA and the IT therefore has jurisdiction. Pirelli, however, have a private contract with the FIA and therefore the FIA's recourse is to the courts directly if they feel there has been a breach of contract. More than that, it means that there are distinctions in what responsibilities can be attributed to each party. This is where labels such as 'Mercedes test', 'secret' and 'equal opportunity' become particularly problematic. They attribute certain characteristics to the situation that may be incorrect or have little relevance.
In the protest to the Stewards in Monaco, the Regulation that was raised was Article 22.4 of the Sporting Regulations. All of Article 22 is dependent upon Article 22.1, which defines track testing as "any track running time not part of an Event undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship, using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year". Considering the phrase "undertaken by a competitor entered in the Championship", in conjunction with the FIA's own statement on the matter on Sunday night in Monaco which said, "Pirelli and Mercedes-AMG were advised by the FIA that such a development test could be possible if carried out by Pirelli, as opposed to the team that would provide the car and driver" demonstrates an interpretation of the Sporting Regulations that distinguishes a 'Pirelli' test from a 'competitor' test.
Based on this, whether Mercedes have breached this Regulation will first be dependent upon whether the test itself was 'undertaken by a competitor' or not and any considerations as to the use of the current car will only come into play if it is established that the test was 'undertaken by a competitor'.
From the moment this story emerged, the testing has been regarded by other competitors and the public as a Mercedes test, which has convoluted the perception of the evidence. It has been assumed by many that Mercedes were running things, but that is in fact only an assumption. There is at least equivalent evidence and interpretation that indicates that this was a test organised by Pirelli and run by Pirelli and that Mercedes merely provided the infrastructure. Pirelli have released information that they booked the test, turned up with the Mercedes car on their trucks, kept the tyres 'blind' from Mercedes and wanted to keep the car settings stable so the data was as consistent as possible. They have also outlined the lengths to which they have gone in the past using the 2010 Lotus car to retain control of the test and ensure that nobody had access to or involvement in anything they shouldn't right down to the level of communication with observing members from teams. It would be wrong to assume that they would not take the equivalent precautions in this situation. It has been said that observers from other teams stopped going to the Lotus tests because they were of no value to them. So it is quite plausible that Mercedes had no control over settings and no access to anything at this test i.e. no data about the tyres, no telemetry about the car, no feedback about anything.
The fact that Mercedes used the current car and drivers is significant for two reasons. First, it raises the question as to whether and what degree control was shifted from Pirelli to the team. While Ferrari, for example, use their Corse Clienti division to run their cars, keeping it distinct from anything to do with the F1 team, Mercedes do not necessarily have an equivalent and may have therefore involved people from their specific testing or racing teams. Meanwhile, no amount of control or concealment of information by Pirelli will prevent the drivers from being able to have some control while in the car and learn, just based on their own skills and driving the car. In a legal sense, while competitors and drivers are defined differently there is overlap on the practicalities and no firm determination as to when and under what circumstances 'driver' becomes part of 'competitor' or remains distinct.
Mercedes' major vulnerability is that they must rely on the test being found to be one not 'undertaken by a competitor' under Article 22.1. If that is not the case, the rest of the the clause, "using cars which conform substantially with the current Formula One Technical Regulations in addition to those from the previous or subsequent year", comes into play and Mercedes have by their own admission breached that part.
That a lot of the specifics surrounding what happened at the test are unknown goes back to the original use of the word 'secret'. It must be noted that not drawing attention to oneself and actively concealing something are two very different things and even active concealment is not indicative of wrongdoing, which must be determined based on what actually happened. That Ferrari themselves conducted a 'secret' test but have had the matter closed upon completion of the investigation supports this point. More than that, however is the fact that if these tests were being run by Pirelli as outlined above then any level of 'secrecy' must be looked at with respect to them.
As a commercial enterprise working through negotiations for a new contract with the sport, it is very possible that they encouraged the apparent secrecy around the tests to protect their commercial property. They would not want a competitor to the contract getting any information about their future tyres. There have been stories about an individual trying to take pictures facing greater security with the Mercedes test compared to the Ferrari test. It is again quite possible that after pictures of the Ferrari test appeared online Pirelli were more conscious of security measures.
A point must also be made about the issue of sporting equity and equal
opportunity. These have very different legal meanings to what they might mean in general language. They do not mean that everything must be identical for everyone. A legitimate interpretation of equal opportunity is for Pirelli to say that they have given everyone the same chance and would have done the same test with anyone who wanted to participate in the future. No judgement can be made on that without seeing the specific communication between Pirelli and the teams about this issue, but based on the existence of discussions that included all teams in 2012 and Red Bull's comment that they were asked about a test like the Mercedes one this year, it is plausible that this satisfies the sporting equity requirement.
There is also a difference between conditions not being the same for everyone and denying someone an opportunity. No team has stated that Pirelli denied them an opportunity, but rather that they either weren't contacted, which may have been a product of prior communication that didn't indicate interest, or declined based on their interpretation of the Regulations at the time, which could have simply been incorrect.
This is important for another reason: sporting equity and equal opportunity must work both ways. If Ferrari can be utilised for testing because they have separate divisions within their organisation that run the cars, to deny competitors who do not have this component the opportunity to test could also be seen as sporting inequity or unequal opportunity and therefore provisions must exist for them to work around that issue. So any arguments made around equal opportunity may look as much at what Mercedes did as what it would have meant to deny them doing what they did. But more importantly if this is an element of the contractual arrangement between Pirelli and the FIA it is highly questionable as to whether it has any relevance to Mercedes at all. Much as it might seem more cordial for Mercedes to contact the other teams with information about their plans, the only issue in terms of whether that specific condition was breached is whether that is their legal responsibility. In a broader context there is no expectation anywhere in F1 that teams will be cordial and collaborative with each other about their interpretations of the Regulations. They deal with their interpretations with the FIA.
This also brings up another issue, which is the FIA's endorsement or lack thereof of the test. Just as the FIA cannot punish without due process, they cannot simply authorise a breach of the Regulations nor is specific permission required, rather they can give information of what they deem an acceptable interpretation of the Regulations or put forward exemptions based on other overriding Regulations such as Safety Regulations. There appeared to be some confusion around this matter when the FIA's statement was released because it indicated they did not give permission for the specific test, but the relevant part was that it also indicated that communication was had about the possibility of a test, which may have provided the FIA's interpretation of the Sporting Regulations or outlined a relevant exemption based on Safety. Of course any interpretation by the FIA holds weight and what will be considered by the International Tribunal is whether the FIA's interpretation was correct and whether, if it was, the test adhered to the requirements. Should the FIA's interpretation not cover certain components then we enter a grey area where it will be asked whether something that is undefined means anything goes or nothing goes.
F1 does have one over-arching clause that may be relevant, which is Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code that provides that it is an offence to engage in "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally", more commonly referred to as 'bringing the sport into disrepute', actually an equally misleading interpretation of the clause itself. This is a far more subjective concept, and as such is a charge that is open to far greater considerations. It is historically only used in the most extreme of circumstances. There are innumerable examples in F1 where this could apply that are simply ignored. Even in the world at large not every wrongful or apparently unfair act is punished. There is always a risk-benefit analysis. With a clause such as Article 151 (c) there are always the broader ramifications as well in F1 that bring into play other issues, such as the relationship between various parties and the reflection on the sport as a whole.
As to how clear-cut the matter is legally, that will be determined if the matter reaches the International Tribunal and upon them hearing the FIA's prosecution evidence and Mercedes defence evidence. The FIA will now issue Mercedes with a Notification of Charges, Mercedes will have fifteen days to respond, then the FIA another fifteen days to respond and then another fifteen days before the International Tribunal hears the matter, subject to the President of the Hearing's right to alter these time limits. In the meantime the FIA can settle this matter with Mercedes if it so chooses.
This assessment is by no means exhaustive; what it is intended to do is provide insight into the process and situation. It is possible that there is an obvious breach of the Regulations, possible that there is none at all and also possible that a breach could be identified by twisting the matter a bit in the same way as many have suggested Mercedes will attempt to twist their way out of the situation. At this point, however, to suggest that what Mercedes have done is wrong and that they are under a cloud of guilt and must justify themselves is to not only ignore issues with respect to the FIA's own due process but to be sucked in by all the noise surrounding the situation.
Jo Soucek
e',F1 does have one over-arching clause that may be relevant, which is Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code that provides that it is an offence to engage in "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally", more commonly referred to as 'bringing the sport into disreput
With Ferrari and Red Bull protesting this test, it is the governing bodies duty to put this before a tribunal. That's not to say we will see a tribunal, this could all end before that. The FIA have raised proceedings, Mercedes have 15 days to respond, and then the tribunal will convene 15 days later only if the FIA are still not satisfied and want a verdict.Cam wrote:If the FIA were confident it gave Mercedes an okay - they'd be no Tribunal - only a cursory press release and a 'nothing to see here'.
I'm not seeing a technical development a team makes as "talking their way out of the crapper". I see that as F1.Cam wrote:Merc have a great track record of talking their way out of the crapper - remember DDRS - was it driver operated or not? They won that round - much to the dismay of other teams and arguably, the wider public.
http://m.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel ... 18446.htmlFoxHound wrote:With Ferrari and Red Bull protesting this test, it is the governing bodies duty to put this before a tribunal. That's not to say we will see a tribunal, this could all end before that. The FIA have raised proceedings, Mercedes have 15 days to respond, and then the tribunal will convene 15 days later only if the FIA are still not satisfied and want a verdict.
What is happening now is ceremonial, It does not mean anything until we hear the verdict.
That's all very well. But did any team come out publicly and protest at the Ferrari test? Not to my memory.Jonnycraig wrote:Personally have to agree with Cam that if the FIA were satisfied that everything was fine and well, they would've stated as such like they have with Ferrari.
Umm. I basically said what you did. Some good arguing found a benefit. I agree. In earlier post I said if they find a loophole to test with 2013 car legally, full credit to them. Why are you skewing my words? Not cool.turbof1 wrote:Cam, sorry, but that last comment of yours concerning ddrs is just prejudging. Mercedes just found a brilliant loophole in the rules, which has been done so many times in the past. F-ducts, double diffuser, levers to lower sideskirts, etc etc.
It has nothing to do with the test, just like any other situation/moment in the past. The testing issue is a problem completely standing on its own.
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I disagree. It is the privilege and the duty of the president to decide if a tribunal is called. If he came to a clear understanding and found it suitable he could have dealt with the situation in a different way. As it was already pointed out there is serious doubt that the competitor Mercedes "ran" a test by which he violated the regulations. If Mercedes can show during the hearing and by their statements that they simply complied with the request from Pirelli who "ran" the test, they have found a legal way to do the testing they did. We simply have to wait to learn the facts about the tyre test. At the moment nobody can equitably make a decision who "ran" the test and who simply supported it. So I would be careful with statements that oblige the FiA to do things, which in actual fact are subject to discretion and investigation.FoxHound wrote:With Ferrari and Red Bull protesting this test, it is the governing bodies duty to put this before a tribunal.
(During the press conference)Rachel Brookes @RachelBrookesTV
Paul Hembery will not be in the FIA press conference in 12 minutes time due to legal advice from Pirelli lawyers.
Adam Cooper @adamcooperf1
Brawn adds: "It was my decision to do the test... We'll see what happens."
