FIA

Documento senza censure

 

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 89
Nigel TOZZI
That is not in your Witness Statement. When did he tell you that?
Jonathan NEALE
During that particular transaction, when he referred to Mike Gascoyne’s being there.
Nigel TOZZI
Why did you not mention that in your witness statement? It is actually rather more important than
Mike Gascoyne’s presence.
Jonathan NEALE
At the time, this was my position. I went under questioning from various members of the World
Motor Sport Council last time on this, and made it absolutely clear that Mike had stopped the
communication.
Nigel TOZZI.
Let us come to the meeting on 25 May.
We have read your statement and see what you say. I suspect that most of us have read the
transcript from the last meeting. Mr Neale, what did you think that Mr Coughlan was trying to
show you at the end of that meeting?
Jonathan NEALE
Again, I covered that with the World Motor Sport Council last time. I think he was trying to make
a pitch for resources to spend on mock-up technology. There was nothing else that he would have
wanted to talked about with any relevance. That is, however, speculation.
Nigel TOZZI
You tell us, in your statement, Paragraph 10, that he took two multi-coloured pictures out of his
bag, which he quickly showed you. You thus knew that this was not an offer from a rival
organisation, but something different.
Jonathan NEALE
That is self-evident.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 90
Nigel TOZZI
Yet you immediately said you did not want to look at it. Why not?
Jonathan NEALE
It was not pertinent to the reason why we were there. I did not regard it as important. I had spent
an hour and a half with him, on a Friday morning, over breakfast, settling down an employee whom
I thought was giving a cry for help and who wanted to leave the organisation. These were lowlevel
concerns. It was not an issue.
Nigel TOZZI
It was in issue: here, an employee wanted to show you something in strict confidence. He pulled it
from his bag, and you immediately recoiled from it, told him that you did not want to know and
advised him to destroy it.
Jonathan NEALE
I don’t think I said “recoil” anywhere.
Nigel TOZZI
I said it. You did not want to know, and told him he ought to destroy it.
Jonathan NEALE
You are putting words in my mouth. I told him that, if this was something that he should not have,
he should destroy it. I was closing the incident down, having spent 90 minutes discussing the
primary reason fro being there. With the benefit of hindsight, there are many questions I might
have asked. As I also say in my statement, at no point did Mr Coughlan reveal that he had
documents belonging to Ferrari, or that these pictures had come from Stepney.
Nigel TOZZI
Let us stay with what you thought it was. You say that “if” it was something that he should not
have, then he should destroy it. You are his employer, his superior. If he has something that he
should not have, surely it is your duty to question him sharply about what he has and what is going
on.
Jonathan NEALE
Again, you are leading me. I regarded the matter as a low-level issue. I did not think it was
significant at all. Nothing on there would have drawn my attention to any team, specifically.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 91
Nigel TOZZI
Why did you think it was something he should not have?
Jonathan NEALE
I think we covered this ground at the last World Motor Sport Council, where the same question was
put to me: the way in which he produced the document, prefacing the subject with “I want to show
you something in strict confidence” naturally alerted me.
Nigel TOZZI
You said, “If my suspicions were correct, he should immediately destroy them”. What suspicions
were those?
Jonathan NEALE
It was a general statement. I had no specific allegations. However, by the way in which he
produced it, there appeared to be something confidential. I did not want to go into the
conversation. I did no think that what I was looking for was particularly grave.
Nigel TOZZI
Let us step back and look at the situation. In March, you became aware that Mr Coughlan had been
receiving Ferrari information from Mr Stepney. Through April, you are told by Mr Coughlan that
Mr Stepney is still contacting him and trying to pass him information. In May, you meet him and
he suddenly produces from his bag documents which you obviously regard as suspicious because
you immediately tell him that if they are not McLaren documents, he should not have them, you did
not want to see them and that he should destroy them. Where did you think they had come from, if
not from Stepney.
Jonathan NEALE
I think I have covered this. There are several questions and allusions in your question. As to where
I thought the documents had come from, I did not know. You are also misleading the World Motor
Sport Council when you make three events, separated by one month at the beginning of a busy
racing season, appear to have occurred in close succession. This was, moreover, not the main focus
and worry of my business. Now, with the benefit of hindsight and what we know now about the
communication, we can wonder at all types of things.
Nigel TOZZI
It is not me who is trying to mislead the World Motor Sport Council. I suggest that, in reality, you
knew that in Coughlan’s bag were documents he had secured from Stepney. Instead of doing the
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 92
right thing – immediately investigating it so that the matter was brought out into the open and dealt
with properly – you turned a blind eye, by telling him that you did not want to know.
Jonathan NEALE
Mr President, I think this is offensive and misleading.
Nigel TOZZI
What is offensive about this?
You are told, in terms, that he wants to show you something in strict confidence, and you turned a
blind eye.
Jonathan NEALE
Those are your words, and not mine.
Nigel TOZZI
Actually, they are the President’s word from the last occasion.
Jonathan NEALE
We discussed this the last time.
Nigel TOZZI
Yes, and he said that this was an inference, but not one that you thought was right. I am suggesting
that it is exactly the right inference, is it not?
Jonathan NEALE
I will not be badgered into changing my position, nor will I mislead the World Motor Sport
Council.
Nigel TOZZI
I asked for you to be called, because I am going to say that you quite intentionally turned a blind
eye. I asked for you to be called so that you could have the opportunity to answer those questions.
This has now been the case.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 93
Jonathan NEALE
What I have said may be inconvenient to the point you are trying to make, but I have told you the
truth. I want the World Motor Sport Council to be quite clear on that. You will find that what I am
saying is entirely consistent with what Mike Coughlan has said, what I have stated and what I
testified when I was here last.
Max MOSLEY
Thank you very much, Mr Neale.
Nigel TOZZI
Dr BRAUN, now.
Max MOSLEY
I am fearful that we are not able see all the witnesses before a few people must leave for flights.
Nigel TOZZI
Dr Braun, could you please go to the last page of your witness statement. Can you confirm that this
is your signature, on the last page?
Dr BRAUN
Yes it is.
Nigel TOZZI
I have one very short question I wish to ask of you. This statement was made on 28 August 2007.
This was before any of us had seen the e-mails that Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso have disclosed.
Have you seen those e-mails?
Dr BRAUN
Yes, I have.
Nigel TOZZI
Is the information in them information that you would have regarded as significant, in your
position?
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 94
Dr BRAUN
It reinforces my opinion, as stated in the last page, particularly information such as weight
distribution, aerodynamic balance, the type of gas used to fill tyres, etc. All of this is strategically
critical information.
Ian MILL
Dr Braun, have you ever worked for McLaren?
Dr BRAUN
I have not.
Ian MILL
Has anyone from McLaren, at any time, told you what the role of Mr Coughlan was?
Dr BRAUN
Yes.
Ian MILL
Who was this?
Dr BRAUN
I interviewed Michael Coughlan at the end of 2005, for a position at Ferrari.
Ian MILL
Thus, your evidence in Paragraph 5 of your statement, where you say that the precise role of a
Chief Designer might vary from team to team, adding that you have knowledge of Mr Coughlan’s
career, you were saying this in part because of your interview with him.
Dr BRAUN
Yes. Mr Coughlan worked for me for a short period at Ferrari.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 95
Ian MILL
Indeed. Then you state: “However, whatever the detailed structure of a team’s engineering
division, it’s Chief Designers role would include the following.” I had understood that to be not an
account of what M Coughlan told you, but rather intelligent speculation and experience. Which is
it?
Dr BRAUN
It is a combination: primarily my experience of the role of people with Mr Coughlan’s seniority in
a racing team.
Ian MILL
Is there any reason that you did not include in your statement the fact that you had interviewed Mr
Coughlan and obtained information of this nature from him?
Dr BRAUN
No, until you asked me the question.
Ian MILL
Have you read Mr Lowe’s statement, in which he comments on Paragraph 5 and explains Mr
Coughlan’s actual role?
Dr BRAUN
I have read it, yes.
Ian MILL
Presumably, you have no reason to doubt what Mr Lowe has told the Council about this?
Dr BRAUN
We are in agreement on a number of points. We do disagree on some points. I think that Mr
Lowe’s statements here and his testimony at the original hearing converge with my opinion that Mr
Coughlan would have had some input in the ideas for McLaren’s Formula 1 car.
Ian MILL
Thank you; that was not quite the question I asked. I asked whether you have any reason to doubt
the accuracy of Mr Lowe’s statements regarding Mr Coughlan’s role.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 96
Dr BRAUN
I don’t agree with it, no.
Ian MILL
You do not agree with it.
Dr BRAUN
With portions of it, no.
Ian MILL
Are you suggesting to the Council that Mr Lowe is mistaken about what the Chief Designer at
McLaren is doing or that he is trying to mislead the Council.
Dr BRAUN
My opinion is that Mr Coughlan would have more input into the car. Mr Lowe paints a picture of
under-the-door engineering, as though a door separated Mr Coughlan from the people with ideas,
and information is passed under that to be approved. Mr Coughlan deals with them, turns them into
a car and passes them back again. I have never seen an arrangement like that work, so I do not
agree with Mr Lowe’s representation.
Ian MILL
You are thus suggesting to the World Motor Sport Council that Mr Lowe is not telling the truth.
Dr BRAUN
I would not agree that someone of Mr Coughlan’s seniority would do that, based partly on what Mr
Coughlan told me, partly based on Mr Lowe’s first statements to this hearing, where he comments
that Mr Coughlan contributes to the idea pool and is free to make suggestions.
Ian MILL
I will not ask the same question again. I will move on.
You go on, in Paragraph 7, to make informed speculation about the way in which a Formula 1 team
might benefit from access to rivals’ confidential information. Mr Lowe has dealt with that in terms,
in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his Witness Statement. Have you read Mr Lowe’s response to your
Paragraph 7?
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 97
Dr BRAUN
Yes, I have.
Ian MILL
Do you accept that what Mr Lowe says is the position, and should be given more weight by this
Council than your supposition?
Nigel TOZZI
That is not evidence; it is a comment, a submission.
Ian MILL
I will put it differently: having read Mr Lowe’s answer, do you accept what he says?
Dr BRAUN
I do not, because Mr Lowe makes reference to the 2006 and 2007 Bridgestone tyres, commenting
that the latter were not the same as the 2006 ones, thus inferring that Ferrari could have gained
advantage. In fact, the 2007 Bridgestone tyres were based on the 2005 Bridgestone tyres.
Bridgestone produced a tyre in 2006 which was very difficult for them to manufacture. Thus, they
took a step back, technologically. The 2005 tyre and the 2007 tyre were very similar, so I do not
agree with Mr Lowe’s comments about the tyre situation.
Ian MILL
Do you have any other comments?
Dr BRAUN
I stand by my comments.
Ian MILL
I know that you have left Ferrari to take a break from motor racing. Are you planning to return to
motor racing?
Dr BRAUN
I am currently in discussion with Ferrari about that possibility.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 98
Ian MILL
Thank you very much indeed.
Max MOSLEY
Thank you very much.
Are there any further witnesses?
Nigel TOZZI
My witnesses are here if anyone wants to question them. I personally do not need them to repeat
what is already in their witness statements.
Max MOSLEY
We do not. Do you, Mr Mill?
Let us go straight into the final submissions, then. The schedule calls for 10 minutes for Ferrari and
20 minutes for McLaren. If you are able to do so more quickly, it would be to everyone’s
advantage, but I did not want to put either of you under pressure.
Nigel TOZZI
I will be as quick as possible.
I will pick up on a few points that Mr Mill made in his presentation and give you bullet point
responses.
First, Mr Mill suggested, on a number of occasions, that this was a trial in which there is to be
“conviction of use”, one in which each and every McLaren witness must be convicted of lying, in
short, one where a very high threshold that must be crossed. With the greatest respect, this is not
what this hearing is about at all. May I remind you of a point I made at the outset of my
submissions. This is an investigation if a charge that McLaren is in breach of Article 151c. That is
all. You do not have to convict them of usage. That word does not appear in the wording of
Article 151c. I urge you not to be seduced into thinking that there is some harder and higher test
than that contained in the Article. The matter is simply to determine whether there has been
conduct prejudicial to motor sport.
Secondly, it was suggested that the burden should be beyond all reasonable doubt; in other words,
if you have any reasonable doubt whatsoever, then you should acquit McLaren. First of all, there is
no question of acquitting McLaren. You have already found them in breach of Article 151c. The
purpose of this hearing is not to revisit that decision, but to determine whether that breach was
rather more serious that you were led to believe on the last occasion. We suggest that the further
evidence that has now come to light plainly demonstrates that it is more serious.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 99
Thirdly, great emphasis was placed on the document signed by the 140 engineers at McLaren. I do
not want to belittle or deride that document. I am sure that they are all very loyal to McLaren and
are all honest men. The point is, as your President said, that they simply do not know. They do not
know whether ideas have come from Coughlan’s use of the Ferrari documents, or the Ferrari
information plainly being fed to him by Stepney.
You do know, in contrast, that the accounts given my Mr Coughlan are untrue. In the UK
proceedings, Mr Coughlan has given an account that did not tell that court anything about all of the
SMS texts and other communications that were going on between him and Mr Stepney. You know
that you cannot trust what he says, when he says he does not use that information. Use your
common sense, then: Is this man, in possession of those documents, obviously having read them,
really not going to use them? Mr Lowe’s suggestion, furthermore, that those documents really are
of no use at all, does give us grounds to attack the objectivity and credibility of Mr Lowe. He is
here to “fight McLaren’s corner”. He is not an objective witness in any true sense of that word. He
is a McLaren representative, through and through, and has come here to fight their cause.
It was also suggested to you that, in some terms, you are “functus” and cannot revisit issues that
you have already decided. You have decided that McLaren is in breach of Article 151c. You are
perfectly entitled to revisit, for instance, the role of Mr Neale in light of the further information that
has come tot light since then. For example, you did not know about the exchange of information
between Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney, which is said to be one of the reasons why Mr Neale
introduced a firewall. You might have expected Mr Neale to explore this a bit further. The idea
that you are functus in that you cannot revisit those issues, is simply wrong.
With regard to the computer investigation, there were rightly serious restrictions as to what
McLaren could look at on Ferrari’s computers. That will come as a surprise to no one. Secondly,
we do not know what we are looking for. The e-mails that have come from de la Rosa and Alonso
are interesting, in that they were not unturned by any of the investigations thus far. The idea that,
because a computer investigation has taken place, all of the relevant information has been unturned,
is frankly naïve. That there may be other smoking guns present was not picked up during the
investigation.
I conclude with this. We suggest that the evidence before you now shows that the problems in
McLaren did not have only to do with Mr Coughlan, though he held a very senior position there.
We now know that McLaren was infected in all sorts of other areas, by knowledge either of the fact
that Coughlan was receiving this information, or quite possibly by use. That is sufficient, in our
submission, to impose a severe punishment, under Article 151c. Were you not to do so, that would
be a failure, effectively rendering Article 151c impotent as a clause. Sometimes, when a patient is
sick, unpleasant medicine must be administered, for it is in the best interest of the patient. That is
the position we are in today.
Max MOSLEY
Mr Mill, before you begin, may I raise a point with you in the McLaren submission?
On page 25 is a document headed “non-discrimination and transparency”. On page 27, there is
reference to the assertion that: “FIA’s undertaking to the European Commission to act in an evenhanded
way as between competitors is fundamental”.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 100
On paragraph 59, I would have a lot to say about this, but we do not have time.
Then, in paragraph 60, there are a number of “further serious concerns”. It is stated that McLaren
has been the subject of discriminatory treatment in the context of its preparation for this hearing.
Two example are listed under that. One says that McLaren has been faced with barrage of
materials and subject to a series of extremely short deadlines in what the press now routinely
describes as a “witch hunt”. Is this a point that McLaren is actually making and wants to make:
that this should be described as a witch hunt?
Ian MILL
You will forgive those in McLaren who have taken quite enough “medicine” – Mr Tozzi referred
also to a siege mentality – if they sometimes believe this to be the case. I do not know whether
there is a witch hunt and am not here to make submissions on that either way. You will forgive
those in the company if they sometimes think this is the case.
Max MOSLEY
You say that you are not here to make submissions on that, but you do. They are here in front of
us, in writing, and refer to a “witch hunt”.
Ian MILL
It says that the press refers to a witch hunt. Our point is simply that we have been met with no small
amount of new material and have had a short period of time in which to deal with it. In other
situations, not before this sporting body, a much greater period of time would have been given, and
far greater time set aside for this matter to be dealt with. We would have had the opportunity to
produce all of our evidence. We could have produced all of our engineers and done everything so
much more effectively. The FIA takes its own course as to what it believes to be a just, fair and
reasonable process. Other bodies might take a different view. All I can tell you is that we have
done the best that we can in a very difficult set of circumstances. Factually speaking, this is the
result of the deadlines imposed upon us. I am not telling you that you would have given Ferrari
four months in a similar situation. I am simply saying how we find ourselves.
Max MOSLEY
You adopted that phrase, “witch hunt”. Do you still adopt it?
Ian MILL
I am not here to support or deny. I am telling you only what my clients feel.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 101
Max MOSLEY
In the second paragraph, it says that “steps have been taken” – implying that these have been taken
by the FIA –
Ian MILL
Oh no. I am so sorry.
Max MOSLEY
This is all about the FIA and our being non-discriminatory.
Ian MILL
I am not suggesting and have no evidence to suggest that we have been subjected to particular
treatment in that respect, specifically by the FIA. What is of very great concern to us is why we
have been treated that way in Italy by those who chose that course of action. Let me make that
absolutely clear. I am not here to suggest that you in any way orchestrated what happened in Italy.
Our concern is what happened. We think it was disgraceful and those responsible for it ought to
regret what happened.
Max MOSLEY
If you list the European Commission and the concept of non-discrimination and transparency,
Ian MILL
Will you take my apology as someone who has not had a great deal of sleep and who has done his
best to produce a document for this body, in the time available to him.
Max MOSLEY
Enough said.
Ian MILL
May I make my submissions?
Max MOSLEY
Yes.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 102
Ian MILL
Thank you.
Gentleman I would like to remind you of the decision on the last occasion.
“It is the unanimous view of the World Council that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes were in
possession of Ferrari secrets or Ferrari information, by virtue of Mr Coughlan’s possession
thereof, irrespective of certain other elements. We therefore find Vodafone McLaren Mercedes in
breach of Article 151c. However, the evidence of any use of this material in a manner calculated to
interfere with the Formula 1 World Championship is insufficient for us to impose any penalty.
Should, in the future, evidence emerge showing that the Formula 1 World Championship was
prejudiced in any way by the possession of this information by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, either
in 2007 or 2008, we reserve the right to invite the team back in front of the World Council, where
they would be faced with the possibility of exclusion.”
Subsequently, the President wrote, “However, these suspicions did not amount to prove to the
standard that the Council felt was necessary to reject McLaren’s team principal and managing
director and convict the team of an offence so grave as to warrant, in all probability, exclusion from
the Championship. In the absence of unambiguous evidence that McLaren as a team has received
and used Ferrari information, the Council was left with McLaren’s responsibility for its employee.
Exclusion or withdrawal of points did not seem appropriate.
That was the position then and it is the position now. I started my submissions to you this morning,
with three central propositions. I will not repeat them; I hope you heard them. We stand by them,
and nothing that you have heard today, impacts on that. I did not hear Mr Tozzi say otherwise in his
submissions. There is no evidence of use. There is no evidence of prejudice to the Formula 1
World Championship by the events that have occurred. I ask you to accept the evidence that is
being tendered by a series of witnesses of truth who have come forward here, on behalf of
McLaren, and whose evidence has not been shaken by questioning today, not under the gentle guise
of the President on this occasion, but through cross-examination from extremely-experienced
leading counsel in England.
With the greatest of respect, the question is not: can McLaren prove that it has not used Ferrari’s
confidential information, but rather the opposite. Is it established, to the standard that the President
himself suggested was appropriate, and that is a very high standard indeed, that we did use the
information? Of course not. How can it? We are left with the suspicion that the President has,
based on the slightly theatrical run-through of those pages, as he stood up and showed everyone the
two files. The suspicion that there is probably something in there. Fine. Then the response is not
bring us back here, let alone throw us out of the championships. Rather, you bring in Mr Whiting.
We have issued an invitation, and it remains on the table. Do not draw conclusions against us. Tell
Charlie Whiting to go into McLaren to go into the organisation and not return until, having checked
it from top to bottom, he is satisfied that no use has occurred. That has not happened; I don’t know
why. I do, however, know that if you convict us today without the FIA having done that, that will
be the grossest misjustice in my professional experience.
[The World Council Members debate behind closed doors, from 16:45 to 17:10.]
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 103
III. Meeting Conclusion
1. Submissions Regarding Sanctions
Max MOSLEY
Mr Mill, we are minded to impose a penalty. Therefore, I invite you to make any comments
regarding that. Furthermore, as any penalty we may imposes will impact on Lewis Hamilton, we
will also invite his counsel to speak.
Ian MILL
With the greatest of respect, how am I possibly to make any submissions on sanctions when you
have not told me what your factual findings are.
Max MOSLEY
I beg your pardon? When we have not told you –
Ian MILL
You have not told us the factual findings.
Let us take a criminal case: someone is charged with murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm
or actual bodily harm. The counsel representing the defendant cannot be asked for his submissions
on sanctions without specifying of what charge the defendant has been found guilty. Am I to
assume that you will find there was actual use? Will you tell me what criticisms you wish to make?
I cannot make submissions in a vacuum.
Secondly, I am grateful for the indication that Mr Phillips can speak, but if you are minded to
impose a very serious sanction, then I would suggest that you hear not just from me – and indeed I
may not be the best person to hear from – but also a statement from Mr Dennis and Mr Norbert
Haug. In justice, I would like you to hear what they have to say. Again however, unless and until
we know precisely what you are going to so, in particular on liability, I don’t know what to say to
you.
Max MOSLEY
We will issue a reasoned decision, setting out our reasons for finding you, as already indicated, in
breach of Article 151c. We will set them out in some detail, for we think this is the right, proper
and fair thing to do. If you wish, you may wait for this to be ready, then make your submissions.
We planned to listen to whatever you had to say, then tell you the decision – the actual finding –
then issue the reasoned decision. If you wish to do so in a different order, we are happy to do so.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 104
Ian MILL
Subject to instructions, how can I assist you? There are so many different possible decisions that
you could have reached: we think that Mr Neale should not have turned a blind eye, being a
manager, and thus should be penalised.
Max MOSLEY
This is such a waste of time
Ian MILL
Or, at the other extreme, you may deem that the McLaren is riddled with Ferrari information. I will
not help you if I make a submission about one end of the spectrum if you are not even considering
that.
Max MOSLEY
In our last decision, we said that, if evidence emerged and if we thought, at a further hearing, that
McLaren had made use of Ferrari information and disseminated in McLaren, you would potentially
face exclusion in 2007-2008. I would have thought it was fairly straightforward for you to start
from that position, subject to whatever you may say, then say what you wish to say, at which point
we will consider that. If Mr Dennis or Mr Haug wish to say something, our patience is unlimited.
That seems the sensible approach. If you are not happy with that, we will put together our reasoned
judgement, you can wait the 1-2 hours required and we will read it to you. I would have thought,
based on what was said last time, that it would be straightforward for you, as well as Mr Dennis
and Mr Haug, to make representations on that. However, if you do not wish to, that is fine.
Ian MILL
Since I understand that the desirable course is to hear from me now, in what I maintain is an
unfortunate vacuum. On behalf of McLaren, we would invite you not to exclude McLaren, either
from this championship or next year’s championship, for a number of reasons. In the first place,
we simply cannot accept that our car is or that our car in the future will be infected with
confidential information from Ferrari. In those circumstances, to eject us from the Championship
would be completely disproportionate.
Secondly, we would ask you to accept the information from our witnesses, even if you think there
is any possibility that you will find that the information has been used. We have not come here to
mislead you and try to deny what has occurred. Therefore, do not remove us from the
Championship, for that would simply be far too harsh a result. There are comments that others can
make better than I can about the impact on the Championship of our exclusion. It would be, in the
lowest terms, very very unfortunate. It is a great Championship this year and next year’s may be
equally great. If we are not present, it would potentially do great damage to the sport, for those
who participate in it and those who watch it. We want to be there and, if there is any way we can
be there, then we will do it.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 105
Find a way to keep us in there, please. I am not going to make submissions to draw any distinction
between the Manufacturers’ and Drivers’ Championships. If anyone should, that would be Mr
Phillips. I want, if we are indeed in the cataclysmic situation to which you alluded, you to hear the
words of Mr Dennis and Mr Haug, on how they feel about this, from the heart.
Ron DENNIS
I will go first.
I am known to ramble, so I will try to keep this as short and unemotional as possible. I have
dedicated my life to motor sport. Every team principal has written or spoken to me about the
process and situation I am in. I am not in the situation by choice or design, but because of the
actions of one rogue employee. Everybody knows that is a fact. I don’t think that anyone doubts
that what took place was between two individuals, who acted independently of their companies.
Both did incredibly stupid things that have involved their companies in such an unbelievable mess
that it is just hard to believe that something so huge could have manifested itself out of that mess.
I believe that nobody, not even Ferrari, thinks that any part of our car is the result of their design
work or anything. I know they are upset and that they even feel that we should be severely
punished. However, punishing 1 300 people and my lifetime’s work for the action of one
individual is extremely severe.
I understand that you could say that I am responsible, because I am the boss. That would, again, be
severe, because it is impossible for me to take responsibility for the actions of everyone, especially
when those actions are in homes and when individuals are communicating with friends, etc. Again,
I had no knowledge of anything. I have spoken the truth throughout this. I made phone calls to the
FIA and Ferrari as and when information became available. I compromised myself, Max, by
calling you in Hungary, but I told the truth. Anything you choose against the company will be
severe, even if it is only guilt of employing a rogue employee. If there is a punishment, let it fit the
crime.
Max MOSLEY
Thank you very much, Ron.
Norbert HAUG
I have followed the evidence very precisely and was kept informed of developments throughout. I
look at the findings of the World Council on 26 July and the assumptions that have emerged now.
All I can say is, please check the car for the evidence. We, at Mercedes have brought a lot to the
sport and will try to do so into the future. If we are guilty, I would be the first to admit that we are
completely wrong and would take the consequences. For us to be fair is even more important than
taking part in races, and our track record attests to this. We are speaking to a second team now; as
you know, there are other issues in Formula 1 now.
This is not a threat; this comes from my heart.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 106
I would like to ask you to reconsider the situation, looking at what it means for a manufacturer to
be thrown out. We hold 25% of television time worldwide, 150 more (as Bernie could tell you).
We are contributing and doing a better job in all countries. I think it is important that we have the
chance to compete. Being thrown out would cause a great deal of reaction and damage. We ask
that you take this into consideration and keep in mind what speaks for Mercedes Benz. I cannot see
that we did not behave in a correct way.
Ian MILL
The economic effect on McLaren on itself has not been specifically mentioned here, but the human
effect will be devastating.
Where the business is concerned, Mr Ecclestone will be able to tell you the precise figures. Suffice
it to say that exclusion for this year and next would give rise to extraordinary losses in revenue
under the Concorde Agreement. I have seen figures. I will not articulate them, as they contain
confidential aspects, but they are very damaging indeed. That is not all. We have our sponsors, our
drivers. You will destroy McLaren if you exclude it. Please do not do that.
Max MOSLEY
Let me simply set the scene, so that there is no doubt. Were we to exclude McLaren from this
year’s championship, the FIA’s precedent in 1984 is such that, for all practical purposes, it would
be as though the team had never entered.
It follows from that the drivers’ points would disappear as well. McLaren’s drivers, however, have
received indemnity, and were told they would not be the subject of proceedings. Were we to
exclude McLaren from the 2007 Championship, the drivers would lose the points so far
accumulated, but would be free to race for whomever they pleased and their superlicense would not
be affected. This would apply as well in 2008, were McLaren to also be excluded there.
Only once in our entire history did we separate the drivers’ points from the manufacturers’ points.
It was in Brazil, in a matter related to fuel. The fuel used in the car was not in conformity with the
sample submitted. Therefore, there was an offence. It was subsequently tested and it turned out
that, had the fuel in the tanks been tested, it would have passed. Thus, the drivers were deemed to
have no conceivable benefit from that and their points were not taken away. I felt this was just, but
the decision was largely criticised by the teams and I was told we must never do this again. In this
case, if McLaren had an advantage, so did the drivers. If they were excluded, there could be no
question of the drivers’ keeping their points.
Mr Hamilton’s Counsel
Thank you for that helpful information, which is what we anticipated.
Mr President, Gentlemen and Ladies, my opening remark is that, from the length of time that Lewis
Hamilton spent giving evidence earlier today, you may think that this has very little to do with him.
However, in our respectful submission, it probably has more to do with him than with many others
involved.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 107
You have received a written statement from Lewis Hamilton and you almost heard oral evidence
from him. Every word I am about to say has been read and approved by Lewis himself. You know
that he knew absolutely nothing about Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan or any Ferrari information.
He knew nothing of the e-mail exchanges you saw between Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso. You
have had evidence and heard submissions from many others, and have obviously formed your
conclusions. As an informed observer, having looked at the evidence from the outside, I ask you
whether, if that information had been present at the last hearing, would you now be thinking as you
are, or whether your thought process has been affected by the fact that those particular e-mails were
not identified at the time and have emerged subsequently. I leave you with that thought.
You decided, on 26 July that McLaren was in breach of the rules because Mr Coughlan had
received the information that he did from Mr Stepney. Through Mr Tozzi, Ferrari has made it clear
that it wishes a severe penalty to be imposed on McLaren for 2007 and 2008. It is clear that, for
both of those years, they want McLaren ejected from the Formula 1 Championship. Gentlemen,
their argument is that, if you do not do that, you will send the wrong message to the public at large
and millions of motor racing fans, amongst whom I count myself. Would it end the right message
to eject McLaren from the F1 championship? Would you have done justice by doing so?
Lewis Hamilton has done nothing wrong. He has driven brilliantly and is leading the Drivers’
Championship by 3 points. If McLaren were banned from competing in the remaining races, Lewis
Hamilton would not be able to compete in the final four races. He would lose the points that he has
so brilliantly won over the last few months, to the sheer delight and excitement of millions of
ordinary motor racing fans. The same would be true in 2008: if McLaren were excluded, Lewis
Hamilton would not be able to compete in 2008 and McLaren would lose him as a driver. Perhaps
he would drive elsewhere, assuming first that he could find a seat and assuming that that was a
competitive seat. But I ask you to remember what he said in his statement: he has wanted to drive
for McLaren for all of his racing life. He has been there since he was a young boy. He has been
supported throughout his career for McLaren and wants to continue racing for McLaren.
Of course, if you do eject McLaren from the 2007 and 2008 Championships, the consequence will
be that Ferrari will certainly win this year’s championship and probably that of next year. It would
leave the Formula 1 to be decided by four races, in which one of the two top teams, if not the top
team, would not be competing. It would be an absolute disaster for Formula 1. The public would
lose all confidence in the sport that we all love. It would also be a disaster for Ferrari. As a thirdparty
and avid motor sport fan, it begs disbelief that Ferrari could seriously want to see McLaren
ejected. Their victories would be as hollow as the ones we saw in Indianapolis 2005. We
respectfully suspect and suggest that racers like Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa would feel
cheated if they were to win the World Championship after their two main rivals had been thrown
out.
The following is critical. As a punishment for what has happened, and putting aside the timetable
of how it came out, it would not be fair or proportionate, based on the core material alone, to eject
McLaren. You may therefore decide that you should deduct points. Of course, that will give rise
to the question: whose points should you consider deducting? Lewis Hamilton has done nothing
wrong and has won his points by driving. One remembers his passing move on Kimi Raikkonen
and respectfully suggest that it would be a travesty to penalise him. We do not ask that any
different treatment be given team-mate and chief competitor in this year’s Formula 1
Championship, Fernando Alonso.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 108
As for the teams’ points in the Manufacturers’ Championship, we would leave it to McLaren to
justify why those should be retained. However, we would observe that stripping McLaren of the
manufacturers’ points, leaving Ferrari to win that championship in the most hollow of victories.
Gentlemen, when you come to consider what is fair proportionate and just, we invite you to have in
mind that the world wants to see the world’s top drivers competing on-track for the World
Championship. They do not want to see it decided by lawyers. We respectfully invite you to leave
the World Championship alone. Where Lewis Hamilton is concerned, let him get back to the track,
to become the first rookie world champion in Formula 1 history.
Max MOSLEY
As a motor sport fan, you will be aware that, time and time again, in Formula 1 and other forms of
racing, there have been small infringements of the technical regulations. One of our principles, as
in all other sports, we do not look at whether there was an advantage: a slightly-higher wing or a
slightly-lower weight means exclusion. In such cases, the driver can say that he did not know, that
it was not his fault or that it made no difference to his performance. In this case, it appears that
information has been circulating at McLaren that was very likely to have an impact on the
performance of the car. It is very difficult to see how we can let that happen without its’ impacting
the Championship.
How could I look Raikkonen in the eye and tell him that other drivers, benefiting not only from
their own manufacturer’s technology, but also that of Ferrari. He would say that this is indeed very
unfair. In this area, we have a problem. What you said is entirely right. We have to take the
longer view and consider the credibility and legitimacy of our championships. If we allow
wholesale transfer of information from one team to another, without the consent of the team from
which that comes, this calls into question every issue of fairness. Sponsors, the television and the
public would conclude that Formula 1 has gone down the same road as cycling or athletics. We
must make sure that this does not happen. Unfortunately, if an athlete is given drugs without his
knowledge by his trainer, it is grossly unfair both for him, for he is not morally responsible for the
offence, and for the other athletes, who did not have the benefit of the drugs.
It is not an easy or straightforward situation. We fully understand what you said and what McLaren
has said. I am sorry for that long discourse. If you want to say any more on that, it may be helpful.
Lewis Hamilton’s Counsel
If there had indeed been wholesale transfer of technology from one team to another, you are
postulating a circumstance in which you are satisfied that the car used by Driver A is a hybrid
Ferrari. Were that the case, I can well see that you would reach the point where it would be
justified to exercise the most extreme sanction.
However, there is a range of sanctions, and you decision will depend on the degree to which the
Council has been satisfied that there probably has been an advantage. In my respectful submission,
the evidence of an advantage is non-existent. The evidence of a possibility of an advantage is very
weak. Against that background, you must start from the top – ejection – work through points, then
down to financial penalties. I have not mentioned the latter, but the fact of the matter is that the
McLaren business is a large and wealthy one. A very strong point can be made that the public
would understand if you considered only a financial penalty without any alteration the
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 109
championship, considering that, in this context, you cannot go beyond a suspicion that there may
have been an advantage.
[World Motor Sport Council debate behind closed doors, from 17:35 to 18:40, to determine
sanctions.]
2. Council Decision
Max MOSLEY
The decision of the World Council is that, for 2007, McLaren will not be excluded from the
Championship, but will lose all of the manufacturers points scored thus far and will score no
manufacturers points for the rest of the season. They will also pay a fine of USD 100 million, less
the money lost through the removal of the 2007 points. A very considerable sum of money is lost
through the 2007 points; that will be deducted and the actual fine will be the difference between
that figure and the USD 100 million. I hope that is clear.
The Sporting Code (Article 152) provides that removal of the manufacturers’ points also entails
removal of the drivers’ points, barring exceptional circumstances. We believe that to be the case in
that the drivers were given immunity; they therefore will not lose their points. Therein lies the
exceptional circumstance. It is our belief that, without making that offer to the drivers, we would
not have received the information that we had today. The drivers may continue to score point. If
there is a podium, the drivers will go on it, but not McLaren. Furthermore, the other
manufacturers’ points remain as they are: the McLaren points gained thus far will disappear, and
the rest of the places and money will be calculated on that basis.
For 2008, with McLaren’s consent, the FIA proposes to send a technical delegation to work over
the next months, with a view to giving a report to the World Council as to whether there is any
advantage to the McLaren car for 2008, as a result of the matters discussed today. That report will
be made available to the World Council. If that report leads the World Council to believe that an
advantage has accrued to McLaren for 2008 because of what has taken place, we will invite
McLaren to make representations at the relevant World Council meeting before making any
decision. That meeting will be the December meeting, for we must give ourselves time. It is a
highly complex matter, both to be fair to McLaren and the other competitors.
We will issue a reasoned judgement – a proper account of why we reached this decision. However,
considering the late hour, I propose to issue that tomorrow, I hope by the end of the morning. You
are entitled to that.
I do not need to remind you of your right to appeal; in this case, the appeal has no suspensive
effect. However, as we are doing nothing to prevent you from running in Belgium, that does not
matter. That is the decision. Is it reasonably clear?
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 110
3. Modalities
Ron DENNIS
If your investigation conclusively proves to the FIA that there is no Ferrari technology whatsoever
in our cars, will this be taken into consideration retrospectively in the 2007 season?
Max MOSLEY
We do not have in mind to ever revisit what we have done, though you have the right to appeal.
We are very concerned, on the one side, that McLaren should not have an unfair advantage in 2008,
yet equally do not wish penalise unfairly if no such advantage exists. The flow of information this
year is such that it was improper – views vary as to how much advantage there was – not only on
the car, but also matters in running the team. We are very concerned about 2008. We do not want
to prevent you from running in 2008, but we do not want you to have an advantage that you should
not.
Ron DENNIS
However, your concern about 2008 would be eliminated at the point where the technical inspection
is completed.
Max MOSLEY
Yes. If the car is deemed 20% Ferrari, we would impose some sort of penalty on you. I do not
want to speculate about what that might be. In other sports, points deficits can be inflicted. We do
not wish to prevent you from running in 2008; we simply do not want you to enjoy an unfair
advantage.
Ron DENNIS
I know this may not be the forum, but it is easier to ask my question now, as we are face-to-face:
would you agree that the most likely point at which this sort of data would be present in the
company is now?
Max MOSLEY
Yes.
Ron DENNIS
We would like the inspection as quickly as possible, subject only to the rules of engagement, so
that we can prepare for it, the period of time, etc.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 111
Max MOSLEY
It does not actually matter. Suppose you are eliminating large amounts of information. That
information would by definition not be used on the car. It would not matter. Nevertheless, we
would like to complete this as quickly as we can, but let us not underestimate the magnitude of the
task.
Ron DENNIS
I do not fear the task at all.
Max MOSLEY
We do.
Ron DENNIS
I care only about the McLaren name. Once that inspection has been proven to be devoid of
anything that could possibly be related to Ferrari intellectual property, I would like that in the
public domain as quickly as possible.
Max MOSLEY
Let us cross that bridge when we come to it.
Ian MILL
One small – or not so small – item is the fine. You suggested that there was no need for any
suspension in relation to the appeal. It is not an inconsiderable amount of money.
Max MOSLEY
We can calculate fairly quickly the FOM figure. It would only be reasonable to give whatever
period. you deem appropriate: one month, two months....
Ian MILL
I as going to suggest the following. I am aware that we are in odd territory because we do not fall
squarely within the dispositions of the International Sporting Code. However, under Article 152, if
we were before the stewards, the lodging of a Notice of Appeal operates as a stay. The figure may
be USD 100 million or USD 80 million, but in any case, it is a very large amount of money. We
will appeal, in part with regard to the size of that fine.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 112
Max MOSLEY
Let us not lose time. The whole thing will be over before you have to pay any money.
Ian MILL
I do not accept that, unless it is put off for a long time. If we are to have a report for the December
meeting, it will form part of our appeal. We will therefore ask the ICA not to hear the matter until
the report has been provided.
Max MOSLEY
There are two completely separate decisions. One regards 2007 and if you wish to appeal it, you
have a certain timeframe within which you are required to do so.
For 2008, once the technical report is produced – and it can only be with McLaren’s consent – the
World Council will make a second decision. Perhaps I did not make this clear.
Ian MILL
Perhaps I was not clear. When that report exonerates McLaren, that will be part of our evidence in
the appeal. I am only asking that this be included in the timing of the appeal. Please make an order
that states that payment may occur within four months; if the deadline is two months, the report
will not yet exist.
Max MOSLEY
If you wish to appeal, you have every right to do so with regard to 2007. At present, we have not
taken a decision about 2008.
Ian MILL
I understand that.
Max MOSLEY
Then you should wait until there is a decision that you do not like, before appealing against the
second decision.
Ian MILL
I am not explaining myself at all well. I am sorry.
The report exonerating us will be the grounds for appealing the decision on 2007, for part of our
grounds will be that you acted prematurely: you should have conducted the inspection before you
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 113
made the decision. If the decision from the report is that there is no inclusion of confidential
information, we will use that to support our submissions that the decision was disproportionate.
That is why we will ask the ICA to delay the appeal until such time as that report is available.
Max MOSLEY
You may make any request you wish of the ICA, but I would recommend two things: first, do not
fall behind the schedule; secondly, bear in mind that they may not agree that the circumstances
were exceptional.
Ian MILL
I accept that. I am sorry we are having this lengthy debate. I am only asking that, when you set the
payment date for the fine, in order to avoid any debate over the stay of the operation, we set a time
that would take into account the point I have just made.
Ron DENNIS
I was going to suggest a constructive way forward: a Grand Prix event is scheduled this weekend,
and another three weeks thereafter, in Japan. It would be eminently practical – and I hope this will
not affect us in the racing – to avoid having the appeal between the Japanese and Chinese Grand
Prix. Could we synchronise the two processes so as to submit the report, whether accepted by the
ICA or not, so that the report does form part of our evidence. If we can complete this process prior
to Japan, we will do so. If not, could we do it afterwards?
Max MOSLEY
Are you referring to the inspection?
Ron DENNIS
I am talking about the inspection being completed and the report being ready before we go to
appeal.
Max MOSLEY
I think this is quite impractical, at least if you have any hope of winning the appeal in 2007. The
inspection, if you agree to it, will require several weeks of people poring over all sorts of
documents from McLaren, agreeing who the parties should be, etc. It is quite sensitive: on the one
side, you cannot have experts, on the other, they cannot be people who may work for your
competitor in the future. It would be a great mistake to muddle the two up. It may be that the
Appeals Court might change our decision and it would be a pity if this did not occur until the end of
the year.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 114
Ron DENNIS
We have to appeal in 48 hours. The point at which the appeal begins is up to you. I ask that you
make the appeal process effectively open after the Chinese Grand Prix. I am only looking for
practical solutions.
Max MOSLEY
You will almost certainly appeal, for one reason or another.
Ron DENNIS
To avoid the fine, for instance!
Max MOSLEY
I suggest that you write a letter when everyone is calm and relaxed, setting out your request, and
address it to the Court of Appeal. It will respond, and perhaps hold a preliminary hearing. It is not
my decision to make.
Ron DENNIS
How do we determine the process of inspection and with whom?
Max MOSLEY
We will make a proposal, to which you will have to respond. It may turn out to be less practical
than we think.
Ron DENNIS
I presume that this will involve looking at data, drawings, working practices, etc. It will obviously
be very time-consuming for my staff.
Max MOSLEY
It is so much more complex than when I was directly involved in Formula 1, that I am perhaps not
the person to ask about this.
Ron DENNIS
As this will involve a large portion of my staff, I would simply like to have an understanding so as
to be able to prepare for it.
Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile
Paris, 13 September 2007 115
Nigel TOZZI
I am slightly concerned and would like to have some clarification. The 2008 Inspection relates to
the 2008 car; you will not inspect the 2007 car.
Max MOSLEY
That is correct.
As I understood it, Mr Mill thought that if the inspection exonerated the 2008 car, it might be, in
some way, relevant and hence he might bring that into his appeal. That is a matter for him to
decide. There will be a 2008 decision. However, in order to make it, we will need this inspection.
Nigel TOZZI
We understood that. I was concerned that there may have been a blurring of that decision, but you
have clarified it.
Ian MILL
The decision will presumably include a time for payment of the fine, after the appeal hearing. Is
that correct?
Max MOSLEY
It would perhaps not be appropriate for me to ask you to make a proposal about that. I suggest
three months.
Ian MILL
Three months is acceptable. Thank you.
Max MOSLEY
That will take you to early December.