All quotes from the FIA statement, maybe you can comment on some notions:
An extraordinary meeting of the World Motor Sport Council was held in Paris on 26 July, 2007. The following decision was taken:
The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code. However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One World Championship. We therefore impose no penalty.
The breach of article 151c might have interfered with the FIA Formula One World Championship, but not improperly in a demonstratable fashion? That wording is descriptive of a fine line indeed. Section 151c (as explained in an earlier link I provided) means that "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interest of motor sports generally" is in breach of the rules. Is it fair to ask how fulfilling that criteria, in itself, could not be improper by definition? Does making an inquiry about the method of an FIA administered test with regard to certain design propositions, based on another team's intellectual property without their explicit knowledge, constitute "proper fraudulent conduct" or a "proper prejudicial act"?
But if it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite Vodafone McLaren Mercedes back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship.
A clever wording, in my humble opinion, as this recognizes that a whole plethora of Ferrari design ideas and tactics has been potentially available to McLaren, and if not directly, then at the very least by the intellect, memory and understanding of Coughlan for a significant amount of time. This will prohibit the team from adopting even remotely similar approaches to Ferrari this year, for the fear of demonstratably using the information in the development of their car. The period (covering next season, too) is likely to be long enough in F1 terms of technical advances. No specifics on the scrutiny McLaren will face to prove the designs remain 100% their own, hopefully enforcement isn't expected to happen by Ferrari exercising a form of "proper fraudulent conduct"?
The WMSC will also invite Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan to show reason why they should not be banned from international motor sport for a lengthy period and the WMSC has delegated authority to deal with this matter to the legal department of the FIA.
Which F1 team would venture to hire them in the short term and in what capacity? I was and am troubled by individuals facing several procedures and punitive ramifications (self regulatory, judicial) resulting from the same action. There's little or no benefit in this for anyone involved as far as I can see and it seems disproportional ... condemn the action, then move on. McLaren was spared of a collective punishment, at least provisionally. For full co-operation and disclosure I wouldn't mind seeing some of that leniency afforded to Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan also.
Also, I was left with the impression that Ferrari overplayed its hand a bit ... they were very specific in how they saw their interests being hurt and pushed those specific points to the WMSC in what appeared to be a bit of a hurry. Maybe a more passive approach would've resulted in an actual punishment imposed ... but to me, the available range of those is actually quite unappealing. If it was up to me, perhaps I wouldn't award the WCC title this year at all, or allocate part of the "success money" generally available to these teams to investigating how to simplify dealing with intellectual property and employment contracts within F1.
Meanwhile I'm content to leave the two teams fighting it out on the track, trusting that they'll be able to gather themselves from this and provide us a good show.
)
