Espionage at Ferrari and McLaren

[allan]

We're all almost sure that Ron did not know about those documents. However, they did beak some rules by only possessing them..
Coughlen acted stupidly, and drove his whole team down the hill. Law does not protect idiots, does it? [-(

[mx_tifoso]

maybe the whole Ferrari-Stepney fight was made up and invented by...
Luca di Montezemolo or some other smart@$$ of Maranello...

If your idea was true,......... Stephney was simply taking one for the team.
----------------------
No surprise why Ferrari were jumped in development pace then.

Very sad to see this coming from professional's in this sport. It shouldn't be necessary to have espionage and sabotage in order to win. But similar things happen in every aspect of life, in the past, present and surely the future of human civilization.

Is fair competition too much to ask for

[Rob W]

Actually, to clarify, if Stepney emailed Coulghan to alert him about Ferrari's moving floor then no rule has actually been broken by McLaren (in that particular event at least).

It all hinges on whether they came into possession of any of Ferrari's intellectual property which they used to make the protest. Simply being told about of the floor but without being given any actual 'design' or official document means McLaren were well within their rights to question the floor's legality.

This is the same as if someone, over dinner, discussed something with another team's staff - intellectual property may not have been passed but enough info to make use of might have. Ditto for viewing car-mounted camera footage from TV.

On this particular issue the crucial factor will be: did McLaren get alerted about the floor or did they get send the floor designs?

In any case, it would be hypocritical for the FIA to penalise someone for outing another teams basic cheating no matter how they found out about it. If this did happen then we could fairly assume that Ferrari did the same last year to protest about Renault's mass-damper device (I mean, how did they know it was in the car without someone telling/showing them?)

Rob W

[checkered]

Rob W, the autosport.com's

wording, ".. specific email that Stepney sent to Coughlan, revealing Ferrari's floor design" could mean that something besides the mere mechanical action or a general principle of function of the bib was conveyed (although I don't see how that would've been necessary for McLaren's purposes even if the team acted specifically on Coughlan's information, of which there's no proof I've seen written of anywhere ... they didn't protest outright against Ferrari, though, which was a shrewd way to go about it in its own right). The hearing, according to the article, is supposed to relate to the email exchange in particular, which in light of everything else (780 technical pages, powder, etc.) seems surprising to me. Anyway, it was McLaren's engineering director Paddy Lowe, not Coughlan, who wrote the quite a specific inquiry about employing a flexy bib to Charlie Whiting, resulting in the test being changed to counter any attempt to engineer around the intent of the rules.

No matter how anything else relates to this, this might imply that at least two designers in rival teams embarked upon influencing the F1 championship in a very specific way for some reason. Still, as said, it hasn't been established yet just how other McLaren staff apart from Coughlan got wind of the Ferrari design. How the responsibility for all this could be expanded from individuals to their teams remains murky for me at this point also. Equally murky (for me, again) is how next week's WMSC hearing is supposed to rule on anything yet as it is clear that much of the whole saga remains to be established anyway? I kinda understand that if this drags on, it could become a nightmare scenario for F1, but this sure seems too early as there's quite a range of punishments on the offing: Starting from a severe reprimand, on to fines, loss of points for either the team and/or drivers from a certain period or indeed closing the team out of the series for a set time (see BAR/Honda with their fuel apparatus thingy). I wouldn’t want to dish out such fare without knowing all the knowable facts.

The word "cheating" has been used prolifically and liberally in relation to both the "flexing floor" and the TMD. The issues are quite different, I believe, but for equally different reasons I'd be cautious to call either "cheating" outright. For the flexing floor, there were regulations in place, including a specific test that actually was the only defined measure of whether that part was acceptable no matter the stated aim differed from the original test. It is notable that the test was changed, at least twice, to prevent a certain action so in essence the regulations themselves were changed, while the intent thereof wasn't. What was enforcable took precedence within the rules, as is most often the case in F1 anyway. That's why, as I've understood it, there was no mention of any kind of sanctions even being considered against Ferrari ... regulations have a certain scope, and Ferrari (and McLaren) forced that scope to be widened.

Not so with the TMD which was, to me, at least an equally curious affair. If I remember it correctly, it was approved – as separate components at least – by Charlie Whiting and featured, in great detail, within the technical section of F1’s official website by Paolo Filisetti before anyone lodged any kind of a protest or before any authority started to look into its legality. I found this strange for a long time, since to me, the TMD self-evidently, obviously contradicted the regulation about moveable ballast from its introduction. Not only that, when the issue was considered at last (close to a year after its introduction), different FIA authorities ended up fighting about enforcement and finally it was declared that the TMD couldn’t be used by one heck of a stretch of an interpretation of aerodynamic rules, an exercise in regulatory footwork the technological necessity of which still eludes my comprehension.

Meanwhile, Joaquin Verdegay, a Spanish member of the World Motor Sport Council has already apparently rised some ire among other representatives by stating that he foresees McLaren being cleared of the yet to be specified accusations. (Or have any of you actually seen what the “charges” against the team would be at this point?) So as not to make things any more simple for anyone ...

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 40,00.html

Oh well, in the end I’m just hoping that the outcome from all this is even half way understandable ... and that it doesn’t blow all out of proportion ... and that the sport of F1 remains at the center. I’m not a soap opera fan, after all.

[FLC]

Meanwhile, Joaquin Verdegay, a Spanish member of the World Motor Sport Council has already apparently rised some ire among other representatives by stating that he foresees McLaren being cleared of the yet to be specified accusations. (Or have any of you actually seen what the “charges” against the team would be at this point?) So as not to make things any more simple for anyone ...

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 40,00.html

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/ ... 2852.shtml

[checkered]

Of course there

was the time when two ex-Ferrari employees took all kinds of intellectual property from Ferrari to Toyota (software etc.) and that was settled in courts exclusively. Suspended sentences, right? FIA didn't look at the sporting side of it at all, and there was no official talk of any kinds of punishments being applied. In a sense, it'd be a kind of a downer if some FIA action decided the championship (to a degree at least) when the four top guys are within 19 pts of each other and propably won't be farther apart after this weekend either.

On the other hand, there's too much sh*t out there to be left uncleaned. There needs to be a measure of clarity and closure before the end of the season and I think every actor directly involved should demonstrate by their actions that they understand that the weight of the inevitable publicity has to be taken into account with regard to teams and individuals involved. Personally, I won't much appreciate attempts to influence things by public perception. Go hard on unacceptable actions, be lenient on human beings IMHO ... admittedly easy to say, hard to do.

[RJC_pt]

Joaquin Verdegay, being Spanish, wouldn't like to see Alonso's team penalised...

[RH1300S]

Rob - you may be able to shed some light on this.....legally speaking, where do Ferrari stand with Stepney?

If McLaren have a corporate responsibility for the actions of a member of staff. Does Ferrari have any responsibility for the actions of Stepney?

REALLY stretching a point here

Without Stepney, McLaren would never have got hold of the documents (I'm assuming it's Stepney - maybe we'd better replace his name with "A Ferrari employee" if we want a really good conspiracy).

Sending unsolicited stuff to a competitor - it's not the same as McLaren breaking into Ferrari and stealing the paperwork (or paying someone to get it).

A conspiracy could even be dreamed up where Ferrari used "a Ferrari Employee" as a mole to "plant" stuff at McLaren (what if the info was not as sensitive as they claim - or even slightly falsified? - i.e. they were not giving as much info as it seemed).

Yes, I know this is far fetched - I'm not trying to defend McLaren - but wondering how far you can push the boat the other way.

Is this also about intent............

What if (as it is claimed) - McLaren asked McCouglan to destroy the documents as soon as they heard about them? And let's assume they could prove that was the case. I.e. they can't help them arriving - but they did the honourable thing as soon as they knew about them.

Yours - in anticipation........

[checkered]

Anyone who has even

a passing interest in motorsport's self regulation and its relationship to national legal organisations with regard to the "McLaren accused of being in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code" case might find this Autosport article by lawyer Thomas O'Keefe a rewarding (for the lack of a better word) read. Also recommended to anyone actually trying to understand the eventual outcome of the proceedings in any relevant context.

Admittedly not the easiest feature to comb through, what, with some legal concepts rather exhaustively (for a layman, that is) explained and a range of precedents given, none of which, by the admission of the writer himself, is directly applicable to the case at hand. It's all supposed to be about racing - hopefully not racing to conclusions, though.

[FLC]

Even lawyers blame it all on Schumacher :

Are you looking for the guilty party in the spying scandal surrounding Ferrari and McLaren?

Easy. It is all Michael Schumacher's fault. If he had not announced his retirement from Ferrari last year, none of what has transpired in this sordid affair would have happened.

Instead of fly-fishing through middle age and traveling the world on sabbatical as he is now, Ross Brawn would have been under an umbrella at the Nurburgring last weekend munching on a banana, figuring out how to win the "wet" race, working on Schumacher's eighth world drivers championship.

Nigel Stepney would have been right there next to him earlier in the race weekend, as Brawn and Stepney drilled the mechanics in practice pitstops, in the pitlane, stopwatches in hand, Stepney uttering "Bene, Bene" when the boys did well.

That's from the opening of the article checkered has linked to.

[Rob W]

Rob - you may be able to shed some light on this.....legally speaking, where do Ferrari stand with Stepney?

I imagine, in the first instance, Ferrari's issue with Stepney is an employment one. They claim he has breached his employment agreement by mis-using team info, dealing with another team, and probably a whole host of other things.

Following that, they almost certainly hope to prosecute him in law for theft of intellectual property - which would mean getting police/investigators involved etc.

If McLaren have a corporate responsibility for the actions of a member of staff. Does Ferrari have any responsibility for the actions of Stepney?

..Without Stepney, McLaren would never have got hold of the documents..

..Sending unsolicited stuff to a competitor - it's not the same as McLaren breaking into Ferrari and stealing the paperwork..

McLaren, in theory, are responsible for the actions of their stuff with regards to Formula One. Anything which involves, or could involve, F1 I'd guess they are. In this case they will be trying to paint Coulghan as a rogue who operated outside McLaren's code of conduct and employment conditions. Much of this case will hinge on this point.

I agree that Stepney sending the documents is not the same as McLaren breaking into Ferrari. ANY team who was sent another team's technical info would sneak a look. In reality, they couldn't even tell what they were until they'd had a look at them so avoiding a technical breach of the sport's rules is nearly impossible. It's what you do with them afterwards and how soon that matters.

I believe that McLaren jumped on this whole thing as soon as it was known to senior management (Dennis, Haug etc). The delay from when Coulghan received it is what might paint McLaren in a bad light.

I actually still feel there are many more details yet to come out. Stepney surely isn't so stupid as to courier a design to someone. Likewise, he's denied doing it at all. Perhaps someone inside Ferrari did have the reason and opportunity to scheme this all up. Get rid of Stepney by making it look like he sent stuff to another team and at the same time taint your competitors achievements to the public, sponsors, staff etc. They can also place Stepney and Coulghan together at their meeting with Nick Fry - also ample reason to decide to cast him loose and also taint his reputation - if even for one year (long enough to render much of his knowledge of the 'current' car obsolete)

Likewise, I think the FIA might ask to inspect a current Ferrari car/plans as evidence that the documents are actually related to the current or recent car.

Rob W

[Rob W]

From the link above... a clear and explicit explanation of the relationship between a team and its employees.

the FIA has a full arsenal of "controlling person" enforcement powers, including, most specifically, Article 3.1 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, which states as follows:

"It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Agreement, the Code, the Technical Regulations and the Sporting Regulations."

In addition, Appendix 2 of the Entry Form for the F1 Sporting Regulations, contains the following undertaking:

"We confirm that we have read and understand the provisions of the International Sporting Code, the 2008 Formula One Technical Regulations and the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations. We agree to be bound by them [...] and further we agree on our own behalf and on behalf of everyone associated with our participation in the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship to observe them."

This acknowledgement makes the team responsible for the actions of their employees. The FIA has been emphatic that its jurisdiction is over the "teams", not necessarily the individual employees of the team, so its enforcement powers are exercised against the teams.

[checkered]

I actually still feel there are many more details yet to come out. Stepney surely isn't so stupid as to courier a design to someone. Likewise, he's denied doing it at all.

I think Ferrari (apart from that/those individual/s that have delivered the 700-odd pages of technical information to Coughlan of course ... if that's how that happened) are still honestly trying to understand just what has been going on. Why else would they use the services of a private intelligence company Quest at this stage, when a hearing is already imminent? And it's also been a while since I last heard anything about the Italian side of the investigation, including the powdery substance that, if I remember it correctly, turned out to be something farming related in a vague statement by the authorities there ...

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19451.html
http://www.quest.co.uk/

[FLC]

Fresh from autosport.com:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61145

including:

According to British newspaper the Guardian, Ferrari state in a recent document submitted to the London High Court that the stolen documents found in Coughlan's possession were beneficial to the McLaren team in the Formula One championship.

According to Ferrari, the fact that Coughlan "was in possession of the Ferrari documents has given McLaren an unfair advantage over Ferrari" and that "Ferrari will suffer loss of at least 5.5 million euro" if they lose the constructors' championship - as well as "suffer loss in respect of damage to the Ferrari brand".

These occasions include not only ex-Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney informing McLaren about Ferrari's floor, but also leaking to McLaren information about Ferrari's brakes and rear wing-flap separators.

Ferrari are adamant the information Coughlan obtained unlawfully benefited McLaren.

"The chief designer is part of the key group of three to four people who drive the technical team to improve the car," Ferrari's lawyers have told the High Court.

Any new rear-wing anyone? A black one, that might cancel the need to continue using the horns? Anyone remembers RD's comments before Canada about working hard on the brakes?

[Rob W]

Fresh from autosport.com:

including:

According to Ferrari, the fact that Coughlan "was in possession of the Ferrari documents has given McLaren an unfair advantage over Ferrari"...

Any new rear-wing anyone?...

I was dreading this moment but it was always going to come. Surely they're not suggesting that Ferrari's unreliability was caused by Coulghan having their plans. And I don't think that McLaren needed their plans to go to any race-meet and take a couple of photos of Ferrari's rear wing design to get the basic idea.

This seems like they've waited long enough, are worried McLaren might actually have a good defense in this whole thing, and now want to pour some more petrol on the flames and stir s**t up..

Rob W