Espionage at Ferrari and McLaren

[waynes]

that letter is quite in depth and a very interesting read

thanks go to the poster

[ginsu]

Read the Ron letter.

In March 2007, Mr Stepney of Ferrari contacted Mr Coughlan and informed him about two aspects of the Ferrari car which he regarded being in breach of FIA regulations. Specifically, he told Mr Coughlan about a floor attachment mechanism and a rear wing separator, both of which could be and were seen on the Ferrari car prior to the Australian Grand Prix.

The truth comes out. Indeed, McLaren did benefit from this information, how can Ron deny that?

As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won. In the interests of the sport, McLaren chose not to protest the result of the Australian Grand Prix even though it seems clear that Ferrari had an illegal competitive advantage.

It's obviously not for Ron to decide whether other teams are illegal or not. If they passed inspection they were LEGAL. The fact that Ron is saying this shows that his defense is weak.

Ferrari only withdrew the floor device after it was confirmed to be illegal by the FIA. Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren, and McLaren drawing it to the attention of the FIA, there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car.

Honestly, Ron is digging the ditch even deeper here. It was not illegal until the FIA changed the rules. Ferrari can turn this around to prove that McLaren benefited.

Whilst we saw nothing wrong with Mr Stepney whistle-blowing on Ferrari's illegal activities, we felt that it was not helpful for him to choose Mr Coughlan to blow the whistle to. We did not feel comfortable with a disgruntled Mr Stepney being in contact with Mr Coughlan. For this reason in March 2007, immediately after the Australian Grand Prix, Mr Coughlan was instructed by his superior Mr Neale to cease contact with Mr Stepney.

My god, Ron knew that Coughlan and Stepney were working together the whole time, that is not good.

As I will explain, these events are quite separate from Mr Stepney's whistle blowing in March 2007, because during this period Mr Coughlan was acting secretly, in breach of his contract with McLaren, and for his own private purposes, quite conceivably as part of a scheme to leave McLaren and join another team together with Mr Stepney.

Duh, Ron. You mean you couldn't possibly fathom that Stepney would want to do more harm? C'mon, talk about playing dumb, Ron.

The background to the meeting on Saturday 28 April 2007 is that in early April 2007, Mr Coughlan told Mr Neale that despite his best efforts to cut off contact, Mr Stepney continued to contact him to express grievances about his lot with Ferrari. Mr Neale arranged for the installation of a "firewall" on McLaren's computer system to stop emails from Mr Stepney.

In addition to this Mr Coughlan said to Mr Neale that the only way he thought that this would stop is if Mr Coughlan spoke to Mr Stepney face to face and told him to stop trying to contact him. Mr Neale agreed that he could do this outside working hours.

LOL, what a freaking joke! Ron wasn't suspicious of them meeting in person, c'mon!

Ferrari has no evidence whatsoever for these offensive and false allegations and presented no such evidence to the World Motor Sports Council. The Council quite correctly rejected these allegations.

Uh, Yeah, because they weren't allowed to present ANY evidence.

So far as Mr Taylor is concerned, Mr Coughlan briefly showed him a single diagram. Mr Taylor had no idea whether this was an old or new diagram and had no idea it came from Mr Stepney. He was not given a copy and made no use of the diagram. He paid no attention to the incident.

Sure, Ron, he paid no attention. So Coughlan showed Taylor this diagram, and Taylor walked away thinking nothing of it. That's so not plausible.

Towards the end of this Mr Coughlan began to show Mr Neale two images, but Mr Neale stated that he was not interested in seeing them. Mr Neale has stated that these images did not appear to have any connection with Ferrari or any other team. When asked at the hearing about this, Mr Neale said that although this was only speculation on his part, he thought that Mr Coughlan was about to refer to the images to seek resources from him for digital mock up equipment.

In short these instances did not alert Mr Taylor or Mr Neale that Mr Coughlan had taken possession of the Ferrari Documents. Neither they or any other member of McLaren staff had any idea what Mr Coughlan had done.

Not very plausible, either. These are incredibly intelligent people who have worked very hard to get where they are. They didn't get there by playing dumb.

I deal lastly with Mr Coughlan's true motives for taking and keeping the Ferrari Documents. Although McLaren cannot know for sure what Mr Coughlan's (and Mr Stepney's) motives were, what McLaren do know is that only a few days after the 28th April Mr Stepney contacted Honda (on 2 May) and commenced a process whereby Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan together offered their services to join Honda. McLaren believes that it is highly likely that Mr Stepney provided the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan as part of a joint scheme to seek employment at another team.

Sounds a bit unlikely. Why would you need a bunch of Ferrari technical documents to join another team? Are they trying to indict Honda?

This is a fantastic World Championship and it would be a tragedy if one of the best World Championships in years was derailed by the acts of one Ferrari and one McLaren employee acting for their own purposes wholly unconnected with Ferrari or McLaren.

I agree Ron, it is fantastic. But why is McLaren where it is right now? They cannot say that they didn't benefit from Stepney leaking design data. It doesn't matter if they never saw a technical drawing, they clearly benefited when they asked for the rule clarification. Ferrari were not running an illegal part or their Austrialian win would've been taken away. Only after the rule clarification did the part become illegal.

[nae]

cant say i expected that

if i was to cut you in half would you have ferrari tattooed round your insides?

objectivity

objectivity or objectiveness noun the fact or quality of being objective, especially of considering things without being dependent on, or influenced by, personal opinions or prejudices.

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chamber ... lla-search

retrospective illegal sanctions have some president . see honda at imola last year. or was that 05 ?

[theblackangus]

I agree Ron, it is fantastic. But why is McLaren where it is right now? They cannot say that they didn't benefit from Stepney leaking design data. It doesn't matter if they never saw a technical drawing, they clearly benefited when they asked for the rule clarification. Ferrari were not running an illegal part or their Austrialian win would've been taken away. Only after the rule clarification did the part become illegal.

If Ferrari is try to gain advantage by going against the spirit of the rules intentionally, what does that make them?

Ron did something gentlemanly. He didnt drag another team in the mud to get done what needed to be done. He did it quietly and respectfully.

Are you saying that Ferrari should be going against the spirit of the rules? And that they deserve that advantage because they were trying to be sneaky and hide it?

I dunno but it seems that Ron choose the path that let everyone off nicely.

[checkered]

Read it through, too. My overall

impression is that both teams' bosses, while events transpired, haven't perhaps been thinking the implications of their actions (or in cases, non-actions) quite all the way through.

In a way I'd want to say that's understandable as they have their desks full, but for the sake of clarity it'd be better if they could've owned up to honest misjudgements and such without the fear of draconian punishments at this point. The defensive "we did no wrong, even inadvertently" style of expression does give the impression of people having something more substantial to hide.

Looking at this mess, I don't think I would touch a rival team's whistleblower with a 10 ft stick, but have an independent party verifiably receive and hold any rival teams' documents (in case the issue didn't get handled to my satisfaction) while directing the said whistleblower to the technical delegates of the FIA to deal with. A slight error in style to put the term whistleblower within quotation marks perhaps - as if whistleblowing is subject to interpretation or something.

As many other teams than Ferrari had to have a look at their floor constructions as the result of this whistleblowing, too, the significance of Stepney going to McLaren especially with this also leaves a few things unanswered. He was dissatisfied with his team and apparently continually making this known to his friend, so perhaps he was fishing for an employment offer from the Woking team? If and when he was dealt with more as a nuisance, perhaps Honda was only plan B then?

Furthermore, I would have likely had an employee of mine discontinue any improper contact in a demonstratable way, not just instructing him to do so. Perhaps I would've conveyed the message to the sender of the unwanted communications myself (as we're talking about senior team members) in no uncertain terms about the implications if the person continued to approach my employee, to himself and my employee both. Threatening to "out" Stepney as the whistleblower wouldn't have been nice, but propably very effective. 20/20 hindsight perhaps, but there it is. I'm also wondering whether Taylor and Neale knew about Coughlan's prior whistleblowing contact with Stepney? Perhaps that too, in hindsight, should've raised an eyebrow or two when Coughlan came up with unfamiliar documents, however few, later on.

I have said this before, and I seem to be in agreement with RD's view about this, that at this point Ferrari is pushing its case all too hard for their own good (and perhaps to the explicit detriment of McLaren). That is not the proper focus of course. Investigations are ongoing and it is right to question Ferrari's motivations if they continue to portray anything and everything in the most sinister light possible even at the cost of really getting to the bottom of this, once and for all. Perhaps the seemingly abrupt timings of the FIA actions haven't helped, but I can also sympathise with anyone wanting to get back to racing asap.

Not much revealed about the "copyshop incident" itself. How did a clerk know what and with whom he/she was dealing with anyway? Did the CDs have very large "Classified Ferrari SpA Intellectual Property, call than-and that number in Maranello, Italy, if found without owner" stickers on top or something?

And, why, indeed, am I wasting my time with this? A lost calling as a cheap thrills paperback novelist perhaps? Do you know that feeling, when you're in front of the telly, watching a truly terrible piece of programming but you're somehow stuck since when you reach for the remote, it continually gets worse than you could ever have imagined? Well, I'm having that sensation right about now. Help.

Edit: Another lengthy take on the "Spy story", published before McLaren's latest open letter.

[FLC]

Did he even bother to let his lawyers look at that letter before publishing it? Almost every paragraph raises more questions about Mclaren's doing than it clears things up.

One must also wonder why RD would designate such a letter to the president of the Italian motorsport authority. Is he that desperate? Does he really think this will make him reconsider his application to the FIA? Why not make it a press release? An interview?

[tetopelis]

oh god!..now this is becoming ridiculous. I'm really starting to hate ferrari now. They are like petulent kids trying to gain some sort of idiotic advantage in teh media and thinking it will translate to the track. For gods sake let it go. At least Mclaren have been handeling it more professionally and trying best to leave most of the things behind close doors. cos from a bzness point of view, no sponsers are gonna like thier name related to a team in such allegative activities. Thats the only reason why RD is acting as he is. Ferrari should understand that. Its not exactly fantastic for thier name what thier doing as well. And if Mclaren is clear of name it will be a major embarassment on ferrari's side..the way they reacted after the first hearing is so heretical..they should concentrate on what stephany and Coughlon did..and its clear that Mclaren did not use any Ferrari data to its advantage..so what on earth is the big deal here.

[Rob W]

Read the Ron letter.

In March 2007, Mr Stepney of Ferrari contacted Mr Coughlan and informed him about two aspects of the Ferrari car which he regarded being in breach of FIA regulations. Specifically, he told Mr Coughlan about a floor attachment mechanism and a rear wing separator

The truth comes out. Indeed, McLaren did benefit from this information, how can Ron deny that?

OK, please read this closely to explain basic copywrite/intellectual property law as it applies in this instance.

If someone calls another team and tells them about a team's (any team's) cheating or suspicious devices no 'crime' has been committed by the recipient. If they then use this knowledge to protest about the device again no crime has been committed.

The possession of intellectual property, as Coulghan had later on, is confined specifically to documents, not mere knowledge of something. The basic reason for this is you can't prove or disprove of anyone knowing or not knowing something in their head.

In simple terms - you can't legislate against people knowing something. Once they know it they can't un-know it. You can only legislate for authorship/ownership of something and proof of this is proven/disproven with actual tangible material - not just thoughts/talk.

This is why McLaren were perfectly fine to question the flexi floor-board issue if they'd been told about it by anyone at all. The only situation where they couldn't is if they had been sent the actual plans or a design sketch - which would automatically qualify as intellectual property.

McLaren's benefitting from this info (actually, every other team on the grid benefited) is not even an issue if they were simply told about the floor.

Rob W

[DaveKillens]

But why is McLaren where it is right now?

So far this season, consistency and reliability have placed McLaren ahead of Ferrari. Kimi has as many wins as Alonso, but Kimi has had some reliability issues with his car. As well, he has been so-so in a few races. Some attribute it to lack of motivation or just learning the new team.
The point is, what separates McLaren from Ferrari has been reliability.
Don't forget, Kimi left McLaren mainly because of reliability. Now the shoe is on the other foot and devout Ferrari fans are pointing their fingers at everything but the true cause.
Reliability and consistency.

[mx_tifoso]

The point is, what separates McLaren from Ferrari has been reliability.
Don't forget, Kimi left McLaren mainly because of reliability. Now the shoe is on the other foot and devout Ferrari fans are pointing their fingers at everything but the true cause.
Reliability and consistency.

Not all Ferrari fans are doing so. I have aknowledged for a while now that unreliability has been the achilles heel of the F2007. Kimi and Felipe have had many opportunities to score valuable points, but due to unreliability in many areas of the car, have not been able to take advantage of those opportunities. Todt and Co. have said many times that the key to succeeding this season will be to have a reliable car, but complete reliability has been unreachable, so far.

Consistency is very important, but it cannot be achieved without reliability.

Seven races remaining, and many points for grabs. We have yet to see the full potential of both the top two chassis on the grid. Not to forget that the drivers have much to say in it as well. So-so results will (most likely) not be acceptable if a championship is the goal.

May the fastest, most consistent driver with the fastest, most reliable chassis win .

(I wonder if Ferrari have thought of implementing a SWOT Analysis for this season .)

[m3_lover]

Besides the floor board issue... all the Ferrari fans have said that Mclaren must have benefited from those pages...I want to see how is that possible with factoids and illustration's that show the link between the technical information and the Mclaren mp-22. If you no information is shown that is fact based then I suggest we get over it or wait until it gets resolved...there is a reason why speculation is a bad word in Finance!!

Now for something funny
http://www.break.com/index/kicking-foot ... -cars.html

[doorboot]

My personal opinion is that Ferrari is doing themselves a lot of harm and that RD has made a very good move with publishing this letter. He seems to be honest and sincere whereas Ferrari seems sinister and driven by insincere motives. I feel a great team such as Ferrari should conduct themselves with a bit more honour.
Furthermore this is addressed to Ginsu wow do you expect people to take you seriously by posting such a deriding and bile laden response? Take of your red tinted glasses and read it like a reasonable adult. Sure not all of it makes sense but it is a hell of a lot more sensible than your posting.

[Mikey_s]

I really should know better - i managed to stay out of this for 20 pages, but I have to add a couple of cents to this now!

Let's get the bias issue out of the way; I follow Ferrari, so everyone knows my affiliation but I will try my hardest to be objective.

The whole thing stinks; the correct route for whistleblowers is not to go to a rival team, but to the FIA if there are concerns about legality. That suggests Stepney's motives were not solely in the interest of fair play.

If Coughlan was also straight he should have told Stepney the same thing and reported the approach to the FIA - he didn't; Therefore we can also assume that his motives were not pure either.

Somebody in McLaren (presumably Coughlan, but we don't know) informed the wider McLaren directors of the concerns over flexy parts, so McLaren definitely should have mentioned the "whistleblowing" to the FIA as the source of the enquiry... I think this is the main issue I have - the suggestion is that if FIA had given the green light to the flexy floor McLaren would have developed their own version, and we would have known nothing about this until further mistakes were made... McL would have a flexy floor too and be checking out the other 'innovations' developed by Ferrari. Coughlan would probably hav a promotion for some great technical 'ideas' and the subterfuge would carry on.

I take the view that the car was legal up to the point that FIA changed the rules (...but I would wouldn't I! ) After all, was McLarens dual brake pedal not legal until it was banned? and RBR's cantilever wing? and what about BMW's flexy floor? and Renault's mass damper? there are hundreds of examples - this highlights another issue; which has been done to death on other threads; but the problem, IMO is the FIA trying to limit the rules in very specific ways.

Notwithstanding that I believe McLarens problem is that once they were aware of the contact with a whistleblower this should have been flagged to the relevant authorities AS SOON AS THEY WERE AWARE OF IT! (sorry for shouting!). and whilst we are on the subject, let's have the truth; which precise documents did Coughlan show to the other McLaren directors? only then can we know what potential benefit the team can have gained.

I think it was Dave K that mentioned on about page 2-3 that it is difficult to gain advantage by copying a rival - all you do is ensure 2nd place. As such I would be rather surprised if McLaren were stupid enough to copy any of the Ferrari bits onto their own car. However, as has been said numerous times, knowing the opponents cards is extremely powerful in being able to predict what they will do.

Stepney and Coughlan have behaved very badly, no doubt about it; I gues they are probably unemployable from here onwards in motorsport. But McLaren have made some big errors in managing this issue; As soon as RD was aware that Stepney was in contact with Coughlan the firewall should have been put in place, lawyers informed and the FIA too. The comment about a face to face meeting being the only solution is implausible in the extreme.

On a personal level I am shocked to the core by this whole saga; it damages the sport that I love very badly because competitors should compete - as hard as they can, but within the rules. Unfortunately the sums of money at stake are very large and this does introduce temptation for trying to develop unfair advantage. If this were solely business I think McLaren might be in deep trouble from the competition compliance authorities as they should have strongly distanced themselves from Stepney (and Coughlan) at a very early stage and informed the regulatory body of the issue - they didn't and that was a mistake. They only started to cooperate when the issue became too big to cover up any more. Both Ferrari and McLaren are covered in the smelly brown stuff and it is a great shame because this is a great season on track.

I am still curious about why Stepney physically passed documents to Coughlan - what was his motive? I refuse to believe that Stepney is stupid (although he appears to have done some stupid things) - but handing over the documents in return for what? There must have been some agreement in return for this; Coughlan was not going to emply him, so he was leaving himself highly vulnerable by handing over his trump cards.... it was clearly a high risk strategy as Coughlan could simply have taken the documents and told Stepney thereafter to clear off... answers on a postcard please because I cannot understand what the benefit was to Stepney at all... as has been said, there must be more to come on this.

I only hope it's all sorted by mid-September because I've paid a lot of money to go and see the Belgian GP - and I'd like to have confidence that the racing is the result of competition and not just a spectacle like Wrestling!

[Rob W]

I am still curious about why Stepney physically passed documents to Coughlan - what was his motive?...

...There must have been some agreement in return for this....

....I cannot understand what the benefit was to Stepney at all... as has been said, there must be more to come on this.

My thoughts exactly as I've said in a couple of previous posts. Why one earth would he do all this? Surely he has (or thought he was going to get) some McLaren designs/plans/info in return. There simply is no benefit to him to hand over the designs to Coulghan like has been suggested.

Rob W

[FLC]

Revenge? Maybe that's how he started? Sounds plausible to me, or as RD described it: "We did not feel comfortable with a disgruntled Mr Stepney being in contact with Mr Coughlan."

One funny paragraph here:

"In the press, Ferrari have described the information which Mr Stepney provided to Mr Coughlan in March 2007 as being Ferrari's "confidential information". This is completely misleading. There is nothing confidential about the rear wing separator, which is immediately visible on the exterior of the car."

So why didn’t they file a complaint before? Why did they need Stepney to make them act on it? Maybe because without the information he supplied they didn't understand the true function of it?