McLaren fined $100,000,000

[SVT666]

McLaren fined by FIA and lose constructor points  

PARIS (AFP) ? McLaren have escaped a disastrous end to their promising season but were dramatically thrown out of the constructors' championship and given a hefty fine by the International Motoring Federation (FIA) over their role in the 'spygate' affair.

The FIA convened a World Motor Sport Council meeting here Thursday to pore over allegations that McLaren, this season's pacesetters in both the drivers and constructors' competitions, benefited from a leaked 780-page dossier of secret Ferrari technical information.

As well as losing all their constructors' points the British-owned team were fined 100 million dollars.

That sanction, which includes any prize and television money they would have earned from the constructors' championship, will be a huge blow to the team which is part-owned by DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes), the Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company, team chief Ron Dennis and the TAG Group (Holdings) SA.

After hours of deliberation the FIA released the following statement: "The World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) has stripped McLaren Mercedes of all constructors' points in the 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship and the team can score no points for the remainder of the season.

"Furthermore, the team will pay a fine equal to 100 million dollars, less the income lost as a result of the points deduction."

It had been feared that rookie Briton Lewis Hamilton, who leads the drivers' championship, and double world champion Fernando Alonso, who trails his teammate by three points, would be excluded from the drivers' title race, an action that would have ruined the 2007 season for millions of fans.

But despite them having earned drivers' championship points in a car that has surely benefited from the very actions their team has been sanctioned for, the drivers have been given immunity for providing evidence to the FIA.

The 'spygate' saga, revolving around a 780-page dossier leaked to McLaren by ex-Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney, has been rumbling on since early July and there are still criminal and civil cases in motion in Italy and Britain respectively.

The FIA has acted on new evidence that emerged last week, thought to include emails, phone conversations and text messages.

Ferrari, who now lead the construcutors' championship by 57 points, released a statement welcoming the judgement: "In light of new evidence, facts and behaviour of an extremely serious nature and grossly prejudical to the interests of the sport have been further demonstrated.

"Ferrari is satisfied that the truth has now emerged."

Amongst those present at the hearing were Hamilton, Mike Coughlin (the former McLaren chief designer who has signed an affidavit claiming Stepney gave him the dossier) and former Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn, who took a break from enjoying a sabbatical away from Formula One.

McLaren have the option to appeal the decision which the FIA is set to fully explain on Friday September 14.

Team chief Dennis will thankful the worst case scenario of seeing his drivers Hamilton and Alonso stripped of their drivers' points was avoided.

However one of the stipulations of Thursday's ruling is that McLaren must also prove there is no Ferrari 'intellectual property' in their cars next year before racing.

The FIA statement added: "The WMSC will receive a full technical report on the 2008 McLaren car and will take a decision at its December 2007 meeting as to what sanction, if any, will be imposed on the team for the 2008 season."

[850CSi]

Holy Crap

[Champ]

Whoops.

[nickdrinkwater]

I'm glad Lewis hasn't lost any points

[MexicoCityM3]

Great: BMW is now 2nd.

[SVT_Power]

$100 million? does that go to FIA or to Ferrari? (or partly to both?)

[deesea]

snap....pwned...I'm guessing a larger portion to Ferrari than the FIA,

[Galaxy]

Congratulations Ferrari on winning the 2007 and 2008 WCC. Well perhaps BMW can be a real competitor next season. Or perhaps Toyota will convene themselves to put their huge budget to use.

$100,000,000 (well actually since Mclaren operates with Pounds it is not quite so damaging) is about one third of their budget now Renault have won the WDC and WCC with around 230,000,000 but some how I do not think Mclaren has the same cost structure.

[Galaxy]

I'm glad Lewis hasn't lost any points

In a way I am glad to, however logically he should have lost his points that he made in an illegal car. The FIA has deceided to keep the exitement alive artificially.

[TheIntrepid]

Pwned.

[Galaxy]

snap....pwned...I'm guessing a larger portion to Ferrari than the FIA,

Since it is a fine Ferrari should get nothing. Ferrari did sue Mclaren in an Italian court and that court could order Mclaren to pay for damages. Ferrari would have to prove that they have suffered monetary damages and that will proberly be next to impossible.

[cawimmer430]

So when is Toyota gonna get slammed for copying Ferrari?   

Fucking bias.

[Nethead]

So when is Toyota gonna get slammed for copying Ferrari?   

Fucking bias.

Copying ain't stealing.  It's close, though...

[Galaxy]

So when is Toyota gonna get slammed for copying Ferrari?   

Fucking bias.

The allegations that Toyota as a team used the information and not just a few individuals  could not stand up to scrutiny. The situation with Mclaren-Mercedes is entirely different. Their chief designer Coughlan had 780 pages of Ferrari documents in his house. The test driver Pedro de la Rosa wrote in an email about testing Ferrari parts. In a another email they discussed Ferrari's weight distribution on both cars at the Australian Grand Prix to two decimal points.

[Galaxy]

We should remember that Honda was banned for three races last year for running their cars below minimum weight, adding extra fuel to a hidden tank at the last pit stop to pass the scale.

[the Teuton]

It's amazing what these companies will do to win.  Ferrari just has so much development on everyone else that it isn't even funny. 

[Nethead]

snap....pwned...I'm guessing a larger portion to Ferrari than the FIA,

deesea: DCDude, the $100 million is just the fine imposed by the FIA--Ferrari is suing for ADDITIONAL money for stealing their development documents--if the documents were stolen in Italy  and therefore the courts of Italy  have jurisdiction, the additional money that McLaren must pay to Ferrari as restitution could be enormous.

[Galaxy]

Here is the offician FIA transcript of the September hearing.

http://press.fiacommunications.com/wmsc-transcript-13-09-2007.pdf


From it one can deduce that Alonso will not be driving for Mclaren next season.


From the document:

Nigel TOZZI
When Mr Alonso said to you, after the Hungarian Grand Prix, that he might disclose information to
the FIA, unless ?

Ron DENNIS
You are wrong in your timing. The exchange between Fernando and I, with his manager present,
took place on the Sunday morning of the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Nigel TOZZI
When he came to you, saying that he had information ? as you tell us, in the course of a heated
discussion ? you did not carry out any further investigation to see whether there had been any truth
in what he had said.

Ron DENNIS
That is completely out of context.

Nigel TOZZI
Answer the question, then give us the context.

Ron DENNIS
I will not answer the question.

Nigel TOZZI
Very well.

Ron DENNIS
I will give you a detailed account, so that you can put the whole issue in context.

Nigel TOZZI
I am assuming that we have it in your witness statement.

Ron DENNIS
The material placed before the World Council has not been read by all of the World Council
members. Therefore, for the Members to understand, I would like to repeat what took place. That
is entirely reasonable.
First, the relationship between Fernando and myself is extremely cold. That is an understatement.
In Fernando?s mind, there is the firm belief that our policy, whereby each driver receives equal
treatment, doe not properly reflect his status as World Champion. He bases this assertion on the
fact that his experience and knowledge and what came to him from his former team is such that he
should receive an advantage.In that discussion, he was extremely upset with what had taken place the previous day, but nowhere
nearly as upset as I was. He said things that he subsequently and fully retracted. Within the
passage of material, he made a specific reference to e-mails from a McLaren engineer. When he
made this statement, I said, ?Stop?. I went out, brought Mr Whitmarsh him in, and Fernando said
everything again, in front of his manager. When he had finished, I turned to Martin Whitmarsh,
asking what we should do with this particular part of the conversation. Martin said we should find
Max. After Martin and Fernando left, that is exactly what he did. I recounted the entire
conversation to Max. I was upset and angry, but mainly upset. Max calmed me down. He said that
I should do nothing. I started to calm down. Then, prior to the race, Fernando?s manager came and
said that he had lost his temper and completely retracted everything he said. When I phoned Max,
Max was understanding and said things to me that are irrelevant here, though I would be more than
comfortable sharing them. He was completely understanding and said that, on the basis of what I
told him, if he felt there was any real validity in what Fernando had said, he would contact me prior
to taking any action.
I, however, on the basis that this was an engineering matter, I asked Martin whether he thought
something was amiss in that area. He told me, ?We have been too thorough in talking to the
engineers; he cannot have been telling the truth.? We subsequently had a reasonable Grand Prix.
Fernando came to me. He had come in 3rd. He apologised for the outburst and I put it down to the
heat of the moment, in which he was angry. That is how I took it. Other than following up with
Martin, the matter ended there, until 26 days later, when the drivers received a letter. What took
place between those times, I do not know. I do not know what circumstances brought that into the
public domain.

Nigel TOZZI
That is not quite right. You know what Mr Mosley said in his letter dated 6 September 2007. You
know what the explanation is: Mr Alonso apparently showed some information to someone else.

Ron DENNIS
I have not seen anything anywhere indicating who said what to whom. To this day, I do not know
how this came to Max?s attention, apart from my telling him. Only Bernie may said that he had
seen something and said he would pass it to Max. I do not know what that is. I do know that Bernie
said it was in Spanish, but I do not know how this material came to the knowledge of the FIA.
Most certainly, I advised Max of this. I am pretty sure I said to Max that there was reputedly ?
Specifically in that conversation with Fernando, Martin said, ?You mean, your engineer on the car?.
He said, ?No, I don?t mean your engineer on the car.

Nigel TOZZI
After matters had calmed down with Mr Alonso and you were once again on speaking terms, you
did not ask him then?

Ron DENNIS
We are not on speaking terms, but that does not matter.
Nigel TOZZI
You did not ask him, in a calm and measured way, whether his suggestion that he had e-mails was
correct on the basis that, if he did have them, he should have told you about them, rather than keep
them up his sleeve. You did not have that conversation, did you?

Ron DENNIS
We have not had any conversations since that point.

Nigel TOZZI
And you did not inquire of Mr de la Rosa, whether he knew?

Ron DENNIS
Why would I talk to drivers, when the conversation with Mr Alonso was subsequently retracted in
full, through his manager. Why would I deal with that? And if I were trying to conceal something,
would I have called Max?

Nigel TOZZI
Let us put that in context. You started that conversation by saying, ?We have never had this
conversation?, did you not?

Ron DENNIS
To Max?

Nigel TOZZI
Yes.

Ron DENNIS
I said, ?in the strictest confidence?. I do not know that I used the phrase, ?We have never had this
conversation. I am not disputing that Max?s recollection may be more accurate than mine. The fact
remains that I was speaking to the President of the FIA. Max will tell you that we have a difficult
relation. It is not a great relationship, due to various issues in the past years over which we have
had differences of opinion.
To call him on the telephone and tell him what had taken place clearly indicates that there was
absolutely no effort on my part to hide what had happened. There was no such effort at all. It was
subsequently retracted and put down to one of our engineers. I had absolute confidence that the
information passed to our engineers had not been involved in it. That gave me the confidence that
he was not telling the truth. And he retracted it.

Nigel TOZZI
If Alonso had not shown the documents to Mr Ecclestone, and Mr Ecclestone had not alerted Mr
Mosley, who then wrote to the drivers, we would not have found out about these e-mails. Is that not
so?

Ron DENNIS
The simple fact is that they did not even exist, as far as I was concerned. Nothing existed, because
he said that he retracted it, that it did not happen. I phoned Max and said that he had retracted it
and calmed down.

Nigel TOZZI
Why is Mr Alonso not here?

Ron DENNIS
Mr Alonso is not here because he does not want to be here. He does not speak to anyone much. He
is a remarkable recluse for a driver. He is not here by choice. Moreover, he said he had other
things to do by previous arrangement. I cannot force him to come. We asked him to come.