Rob W wrote:It doesn't but has previously been stated by the bosses of F1 themselves that that would be the punishment if a team was found to have breached the rules seriously. As it stands they haven't done it. The rules were written, I imagine, without specific penalties prescribed because of the potential for cheating in technical areas which would be hard to cover completely, not to mention the penalties would have to change yearly to factor in comparative costs/revenue etc. This is why the "possession" alone doctrine is accepted and the bar set. Renault failed this test massively.
You make valid
and interesting points there. It is consistently said that breaches are treated with zero tolerance (implicating the heaviest penalty should be automatic). Yet the international sporting code lists a wide variety of penalties, which in light of this is a bit baffling. I don't know if it's specified anywhere, but are the lesser penalties only for stewards to consider? Another thing is that the bosses don't put their money where their mouth is - everyone "agrees" about exclusions, but there's almost a 100% history i.e. precedent of lesser penalties.
It's almost as if the teams are forced to settle issues with gentlemens' agreements so that the FIA doesn't have to bother. Then there's also the issue that there are
technical and
sporting rules. Very many seem to be confused about the two, can't tell them apart, don't appreciate the distinction and perhaps for good reason. These two enable at least three scenarios, two of which have been judged on more or less consistently, but at least fairly frequently. There's a variety of pure sporting violations (track conduct, team orders) that has little to nothing to do with technical issues. There are technical violations (designing parts with false tolerances, underweight) that have sporting ramifications but can be ruled mainly on intentionality and technical merits.
This latest thing is something new. A sporting issue (IP misappropriation, espionage) with grave technical ramifications. I see loads of very experienced people getting all mixed up in trying to apply precedents to this order of things, and those precedents don't fit. In fact, the Renault decision (I'm loath to call it verdict, since it ain't a court of law) went according to the only precedent I can think of in the FIA trying to deal with comparable issues. I guess with McLaren/Ferrari the FIA felt compelled to act, since had they waited for the police investigations and court cases to end, they might've as well shut down F1 for the time being. Toyota vs. Ferrari was dealt with in courts, but then again it wasn't a championship nor an urgent issue.
Humongously bad choices on offer all around. This is why I've consistently asked who takes responsibility for F1 in its entirety? The Renault case seems much more straightforward and simple than the McLaren case - given the precedent they approached it quite fearlessly. The WMSC placed trust in McLaren that they had done everything they could've to uncover every aspect of Coughlan's activities and reported everything in their knowledge. This was supremely important in order to keep the championship going in a believable setting. They hadn't and that's a sporting issue, and a pretty straightforward one at that, as well. I fully expect the WMSC to hold Renault to that standard.
Rob W wrote:Personal file? This I have serious issue with. He works for the team - they own the computers and the network. How can anyone claim anything is ever been loaded onto a work network for any reason other than as part of the operations of the company? Likewise, how can they claim it was his personal drive and therefore less of a crime when Mike Coulghan's home computer was part of the evidence against McLaren. Surely a home computer is less of a crime than a work/network computer in the design department???
They don't have to claim it was less of a breach, it's that simple. It was taken and possessed by an engineer who works for a new employer in direct competition with his old employer. It doesn't matter where the originally misappropriated IP is physically, unless it's in its accepted form - in the engineer's recollection. Some people, drivers included, within McLaren made concerted efforts to understand and even incorporate foreign IP information in their car (tyre gas, CoG being the clearer examples), so they equally had IP there even if it wasn't in its original form or even if they failed to understand it. F1 doesn't race paper documents or computer files, after all.
The only publicly detailed information in the Renault case (mass damper) became unusable at the time it was brought into the Renault system - this might prove to be more than just a coincidence. Where the original misappropriated IP is matters mostly in proving the trail of possession. And clearly there's significance in stating that the documents were in Mackereth's personal computer file - McLaren wouldn't have had to state it if it hadn't.
Rob W wrote:So more people in Renault's design department saw (it really doesn't matter why the admitted it - just that they have) these designs than the McLaren case (or at least was admitted/proven in the McLaren case)? How then can the crime of attempting to make use of the info be less than the McLaren case? More design department people saw the info. It's irrelevant that they only saw a few things which are deemed now to be not that important - because they didn't know that until they'd looked at it. For all they knew they were about to look at the golden key to McLaren's car design. As it turns out it wasn't but the point is they're now using a "yes, we cheated technically... but the info wasn't any good so we didn't get any performance advantage out of it" type of excuse which is laughable. It's like robbing a bank and then trying to excuse the crime by saying in court "but I only got $22".
Uploading files to "one location of an integrated design network". It was on Renault's design department network - the worst possible place on the entire planet it could be for someone to try to deny claims of cheating. If it was only on his wife's lap-top I might think differently but there is absolutely no way that loading it onto the network can be anything other than for the sole intention of looking at and sharing the info with others. I mean the whole reason of existence for a network is to share information. Are they trying to say now that they loaded it onto a network to not show it to anyone? (and they are designing F1 cars? 
)
Who said more people saw stuff in Renault's design dept. than in McLaren's? That we don't know is part of Mclaren's failure to live up to the terms of the first decision of the WMSC in their case. And we don't know if and how Mackereth informed the ones he showed the documents to of what they were about to see. At McLaren Coughlan, de la Rosa and Alonso knew explicitly what the information was, in fact made specific requests as to the desired content and were under no illusion as to whence it came.
And yes, that's the beauty integrated design networks - who has done what with which file can most likely be traced accurately, since the overall system has to deliver any changes to all designers in real time to prevent mishaps. Therefore it's very likely that any attempt to incorporate that data anywhere would be self-evident. In fact, you don't want misappropriated IP in such a network if you think you'll need to deny having it later. Then again people are fallible. I've gotten the impression that Mackereth waited five months until bringing the files to work. If that is the case then answering "Why?" might work either in Renault's or McLarens favour.
Rob W wrote:De La Rosa and Alonso are not designers either which I think is a mitigating point. The crime at McLaren was 99% Coulghan and 1% the drivers. Nor did the drivers see the design info (unless I missed that page in the transcript - it was a tad long to read all of sorry).
Then I must be a more avid reader of transcripts of the two of us. Or perhaps it's time you referred the latest one?
Rob W wrote:I am eagerly awaiting the transcripts of this. Frank Williams (and BMW etc) has a deep vested interest in this for sure. Why? Because, as a signatory to the F1 agreement, he has every right to protest a team which beat his and has been caught cheating. They earned money from it and, worse, it costs him money and reduces the efficiency of his design department comparatively. - I mean if there are at least two teams who, through foul play, were getting the benefit of someone else's design efforts, then Frank's team has been defrauded of revenue.
In theory, you're right. But involvement in this doesn't get you any friends with the owners of F1, their sponsors or, indeed, the FIA. Frank Williams and Patrick Head are very experienced. They'll try and help resolve these things constructively, if an opportunity presents itself, of that I'm sure.
Rob W wrote:I would wage money the teams not involved in the spying scandals have gone to the FIA and said they want compensation for 2007 and perhaps even 2006 now.
Hopefully they've agreed to something, having had a small parley with Ecclestone earlier on.
One observation still: A lot of people consistently want to draw direct parallels between what happened at McLaren and what happened at Renault. It is unfair to reduce the issues so, for both teams, especially in those instances when there's no relevant comparison to make. Both Renault and McLaren deserve to be considered by their own merits as well. I appreciate that we're dealing with a wider problem, but I can see neither McLaren nor Renault being in the ideal position to defend F1's general interest at the moment.
That is why we need to try and distance ourselves from their immediate concerns. I feel terribly frustrated by the parallels and try, whenever I can, to see beyond them. For the most part, due to the sheer weight of details which under other circumstances would be trivial, I feel like I'm failing in that pursuit.
