McLaren espionage hearing

You'd think that would be the case, but it wouldn't in the medium to long run really. The sponsors that want to have a presense in F1 would just go to the next best teams they could. Those teams would have the extra money, their development would speed up, they would become more competitive etc. If you remove one "superpower" another will grow from that to fill it's place.

Anyway, who won the last 2 world championships while McLaren were spending the season practising engine failures? It's hasn't been a two horse race between McLaren and Ferrari for years.

F1 would lose some spectators for sure, probably their Italian race completely, but Bernie seems more interested in expanding into the rich arab nations these days.

That is simply not true.
Doesn't matter where Ferrari is on the grid it will allways be bigger than F1. I am not a Ferrari fan, but I still remember how the media, fans and sport lovers reacted when Schumacher won their 1st drivers champ for over 20 years.

I've not posted here but I might aswell say my opinion now.
This whole thing is a goddam circus and the FIA and WMSC are the clowns of the show. They are both disgraceful and pathetic, I lack better words to describe them.
 
Last edited:
It continues...

It continues...

Todt: McLaren used data to limit Ferrari performance

McLaren?s chief designer Mike Coughlan had access to leaked Ferrari data prior to the start of the 2007 season which prompted the team?s subsequent request for FIA clarification over the use of ?moveable? floors. That is the claim of Ferrari boss Jean Todt, after his rivals escaped sanction in last week?s World Motor Sport Council hearing.

The Council agreed that McLaren were in possession of Ferrari data, but chose not to penalise them as they could find insufficient proof the team had made use of it. However, Todt believes it was utilised by the British team, albeit indirectly, to give them an advantage over Ferrari.

"The McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from [former Ferrari engineer] Nigel Stepney,? said Todt on the official Ferrari website.

?Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over ?some cars?. Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours.?

Ferrari won the season opener in Melbourne, but their performance dropped off in the following races after the FIA tightened the regulations relating to floor mountings, limiting teams? ability to use movement in the floor for aerodynamic gain. McLaren have insisted no one in the team, bar Coughlan, knew of the Ferrari data prior to July 3, when Coughlan was suspended.

Admitting he remains bitter about the World Council?s decision, Todt also accused McLaren of hypocrisy after revealing that he had recently signed an accord with them, aimed at preventing disputes between the two teams.

"A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority,? said Todt.

?I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren. There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on 9 June last.

?Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the e-mails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us. So, on the one hand, they had come to say ?let us trust one another,? and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above.?

Summarising his feelings on the FIA?s findings, Todt concluded: "This decision remains very disappointing and surprising. It is not acceptable to create a precedent in such an important case in which the guilty verdict for serious and persistent violation of the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not automatically incur a penalty.?

Todt confirmed that Ferrari will press on with legal actions relating to Stepney and Coughlan currently taking place in Italy and in England, and that the team have not ruled out taking further action over the matter.

Source

I am getting a little sick and tired of reading about it now, just get over it and move on!!
 
Ok. Ferrari are starting to piss me off now. If they arent careful, it could backfire against them! McLaren were found guilty of contravening article 151c, but there was insufficent evidence to penalise them. Why can't Ferrari understand that? Why must they try and win the championship at any cost? Whats the odds that they are analysing all this McLaren data that McLaren really didnt have to give them!!

Ferrari ponders further action in spy case

Ferrari is considering appealing against the FIA?s decision not to impose a penalty on McLaren in the spying case.

The World Motor Sport Council ruled last Thursday that McLaren had contravened article 151c of Formula 1?s sporting code because its chief designer Mike Coughlan possessed confidential Ferrari technical documents.

But it deemed there was ?insufficient evidence? that the team had used or benefited from the information to warrant any kind of penalty.

Ferrari was deeply aggrieved at the verdict, describing it as ?incomprehensible? that McLaren could be found guilty as charged and yet escape without sanction.

Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has warned that ?the story will not end here? and, in a lengthy response published on the team?s website, CEO Jean Todt said the team ?does not rule out? further action in addition to the ongoing legal cases against Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlan in Italy and England.

?This decision remains very disappointing and surprising,? Todt said.

?It is not acceptable to create a precedent in such an important case in which the guilty verdict for serious and persistent violation of the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not automatically incur a penalty.

?For our part, we will press on with the legal actions currently taking place in Italy and in England, and we do not rule out taking further action.?

Todt said the fact McLaren that questioned Ferrari?s compliance with the bodywork regulations at the start of the season and called for a clarification of the rules was attributable to inside knowledge of his team?s designs.

And he claimed the more stringent bodywork deflection tests subsequently introduced ? which were believed to hurt Ferrari more than other teams ? showed that McLaren had gained an advantage even if it had not incorporated Ferrari designs on its own car.

?During [the WMSC] meeting, the McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from Nigel Stepney,? said Todt.

?Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, the McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over ?some cars?.

?Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours.

?It is important to underline that the information used to try and damage Ferrari through the FIA might be only a part of the information received by McLaren.?

Todt argued that possession of leaked information was sufficient grounds for a penalty, and said it was unreasonable for the burden of proof to lie with Ferrari.

?As confirmed in that decision yesterday, the violation was already there in the simple possession of the information, which in itself constitutes an enormous advantage in a sport like Formula 1,? he said.

?In Ferrari?s opinion, it is like playing a hand of poker with a rival who already knows what cards you are holding.

?It remains incomprehensible that apart from possession, one must also demonstrate the effective and visible use of this information on the McLaren car.

?Actually, this very same fact, on the basis of available information which the FIA used to find McLaren guilty, shows that the offence lies in the possession without the need to prove anything else.

?The proof is there and this led to the FIA?s decision. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how the verdict makes sense.

?Furthermore, I have to say that the proof of effective use requested by the FIA is impossible for Ferrari to furnish, because of course, Ferrari does not have access to the McLaren car.?

Todt accused McLaren boss Ron Dennis of reneging on an understanding they had reached to establish a better working relationship between the two arch-rival teams.

?A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority,? Todt said.

?I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren.

?There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on 9th June last.

?Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the emails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us.

?So, on the one hand, they had come to say ?let us trust one another?, and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.?

Source
 
?A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority,? Todt said.

?I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren.

?There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on 9th June last.

?Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the emails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us.

?So, on the one hand, they had come to say ?let us trust one another?, and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.?

I feel McLaren have honoured this agreement, seeing as they installed a firewall against Stepney's emails and disregarded the information that was available to Coughlan. They informed the FIA and Ferrari as soon as they found out about the dossier and even went as far as providing the Scuderia with information relating to their own car!

This is most of the reason why I have always disliked Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. Sore losers who win by undermining their competitors without inventing anything truly clever of their own. It happened in 1998 when McLaren devised their (perfectly legal) driver assisted traction control. Williams and Jordan developed their own systems but Ferrari, instead of rising to the technical challenge asked for its ban instead. Of course there were mutterings about Ferrari's use of illegal TC up to the German grand prix of that year as well. That would be in keeping with their underhand nature. Tad Czapski was the electronics whiz hired from Benetton, who themselves were accused of illegal TC in 1994. I'm not suggesting anything here, but the removing of the (apparent) system so conveniently happened around the time the Ferrari's put on a dismal performance at Hockenheim 1998.

Ferrari also seeked the banning of Aluminium berellyium, used extensively by Mercedes up until 2001. Whats the matter old horse? Couldn't source any for your own needs? McLaren developing an energy recovery braking system? We can't have that, oh no! Michelin-gate of 2003 - that was a very low move to wait as long as they did to bring the issue to light. It wasn't even an issue anyway, as the tyres complied with the regulations. The press conference at Monza is one of the best you could ever see with Patrick Head, Ron Dennis and Flavio Briatore all having a go at Ross Brawn. I couldve almost felt sorry for him. I'll try and find a video somewhere. Anyway, I digress. 2006 and Renault's mass damper system. Ban it!

I don't really see any ground breaking technical innovations unveiled by Ferrari, unless you count the wheel covers. The quickness of Renault in getting them on their cars suggests that they too had them under development before being unveiled by Ferrari.

Finally, a quote from Patrick Head (Michael & Co. The Dream Team, 2003) states that 'history shows that this sort of thing happens, particularly when Ferrari find themselves in a competitve position, and they take the approach - they fight the battle off the track...so it's not unexpected'.
 
Last edited:
^ I wonder if Ferrari had secret Renault documents about the wheel covers??
 
Ferrari's collective attitude, particularly that little troll Todt, just makes me a little sick.

They couldn't show how McLaren used any data to improve their performance, or that they even knew about it, so they're complaining instead that Ferrari weren't allowed to cheat?

I know their point is that they think people other than Coughlan saw the data, but since that can't be proven and the case has already been through the legal system, they're now complaining they weren't allowed to cheat?
 
I hope when the Stepney case begins, that Ferrari gets absolutely slaughtered by the press over allegations that will come out.
 
Oh FFS, just what the f#ck is Ferrari's problem? Talk about sheer ignorance and arrogance all mixed up into a neat little red package.

Before the season started I was supporting Kimi for the title - no longer.
 
I think people would be more pissed at Ferrari, for leaving F1, then at the FIA.

They really are pathetic.
 
^ Wow, I didn't know I could simultaneously despise and find something laughably ridiculous at the same time. Turns out I can.
 
Its going to backfire against Ferrari. They wont win any friends here.

I hope they get crushed in the championship now, and I wish them 20 years bad luck aswell. Not only do they have my least fave driver, Massa, on their team, but they now go behind Spyker on my list of disliked teams.
 
This is funny!! It has put a completely new level of exitment to the F1 championship!!
 
Its going to backfire against Ferrari. They wont win any friends here.

One can only hope.

I hope they get crushed in the championship now, and I wish them 20 years bad luck aswell. Not only do they have my least fave driver, Massa, on their team, but they now go behind Spyker on my list of disliked teams.

Behind Spyker?? Wow, you hate them as much as I do.
 
^ I hate them alright!! And you all know how much I hate Spyker!
 
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40222

McLaren has accused Ferrari of spreading false and misleading information about its role in the spy saga so as to tarnish its reputation and destabilise its world championship challenge.

In addition, the British team has responded to its Italian rival?s allegations that it has cheated by claiming that Ferrari won the season-opening Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.

Stung by recent statements from Ferrari and the Italian motorsport federation, and dismayed by the FIA?s decision to refer the espionage case to its Court of Appeal, McLaren published a detailed monologue on Wednesday evening intended to ?set the record straight?.

The letter, written by Ron Dennis and addressed to the president of the Italian motorsport authority Luigi Macaluso, presents McLaren?s version of events in public for the first time.

Dennis reveals that his team was made aware of technical irregularities with Ferrari?s cars in March after Ferrari?s high-ranking employee Nigel Stepney tipped off McLaren?s chief designer Mike Coughlan.

But he insists that this disclosure constituted ?whistle-blowing? and was in no way connected to the 780-page dossier containing secret Ferrari information later found at Coughlan?s house ? of which McLaren says it had no knowledge until July 3.

The information Stepney furnished in March concerned two contentious aspects of the Ferrari F2007: its rear wing separator and a floor attachment mechanism.

As a result McLaren requested a clarification of the rules from the FIA, which subsequently introduced more stringent bodywork regulations that forced Ferrari to redesign its floor.

?As far as we are aware, Ferrari ran their cars with this illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix, which they won,? Dennis writes.

?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.?

Despite defending Stepney?s ?whistle-blowing?, Dennis says McLaren was concerned that he might be harbouring a grudge against Ferrari and therefore instructed Coughlan to avoid further contact with him.

Coughlan was given the go-ahead to meet Stepney on April 28 ? outside of working hours ? after he convinced his superiors that it was the only way to stop Stepney from continuing to air his grievances about Ferrari.

Dennis says McLaren believed that this meeting had settled the matter and knew of no more conversations between the two men until July 3.

He categorically refutes the allegation that any other McLaren employees knew that Coughlan had been given confidential Ferrari data by Stepney, and insists Coughlan kept this material at his house for ulterior motives.

?I emphasise that these documents were found at Mr Coughlan?s home,? Dennis writes.

?No Ferrari documents were found at McLaren?s offices.

?Since Ferrari discovered that Mr Coughlan had the Ferrari documents at his home, it has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to maximise the damage to McLaren, no doubt hoping to gain some advantage for the world championship.

?In particular, Ferrari has alleged, without any justification, that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done and that McLaren made some use of the documents.

?Ferrari has no evidence whatsoever for these offensive and false allegations and presented no such evidence to the World Motor Sport Council.

?The Council quite correctly rejected these allegations.?

Dennis accuses Ferrari of deliberately blurring the distinction between the earlier ?whistle-blowing? incident and Stepney and Coughlan?s subsequent collusion.

?These [latter] 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,? Dennis writes.

?As regards Ferrari?s allegation that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done, in its statements to the press, Ferrari has tried to confuse the March 2007 whistle-blowing by Mr Stepney (which McLaren did know about) with the events on and following 28 April 2007 (which Mr Coughlan kept completely secret).

?Let me make it clear: McLaren did know about the whistle-blowing matters in March 2007 ? indeed it reported these matters to the FIA.

?However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007.

?McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that.?

Dennis admits that two McLaren staff, including managing director Jonathan Neale, were shown single pieces of paper which Coughlan claims were taken from the Ferrari dossier ? but denies that they either used them or had any idea of their provenance.

?In short these instances did not alert Mr Taylor or Mr Neale that Mr Coughlan had taken possession of the Ferrari documents,? Dennis writes.

?Neither they nor any other member of McLaren staff had any idea what Mr Coughlan had done.?

Dennis is adamant that McLaren was not only unaware of Coughlan?s collusion with Stepney, but did not benefit inadvertently from the information he had gleaned.

?Mr Coughlan himself is categoric that he made no use of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car,? Dennis writes.

?Mr Coughlan?s job related to the management of drawing production by the design staff and their sign off prior to issue to our production facilities.

?He did not have responsibility for the performance enhancement of the car.?

Dennis says McLaren conducted ?a very thorough physical and electronic search? which established that ?none of the Ferrari documents were at McLaren as opposed to at Mr Coughlan?s home, and that there is no possibility that any of the information in those documents could have been used on any development on the McLaren car.

?At the hearing, McLaren demonstrated clearly to the satisfaction of the World Motor Sport Council that no use whatsoever has been made of any of the contents of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car.

?Accordingly, Ferrari?s continued allegations in the press that McLaren has made use of the Ferrari Documents are entirely false.?

Finally, Dennis disputes Ferrari?s claim that it was not given a proper opportunity to put its case, pointing to a memorandum circulated to the WMSC (and leaked to the Italian press) and several interventions during the hearing itself.

?Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council,? Dennis contends.

?I therefore simply do not understand what basis there is for Ferrari?s claim that it was denied an opportunity to put its case.

?It put its case both in writing and orally.?

In his closing remarks Dennis accuses Ferrari of dragging the sport through the mud through ?grossly misleading statements? about McLaren?s actions.

?The reason McLaren was not penalised is that the World Motor Sport Council rightly concluded that it should not be blamed for Mr Coughlan?s actions,? he writes.

?It based its decision on solid facts and not false innuendo.

?McLaren?s reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari.

?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.

?We believe that the Ferrari press releases, the leaks to the Italian press and recent events have been damaging to Formula 1 as well as McLaren.

?The world championship should be contested on the track not in courts or in the press.

?We will naturally present our case before the FIA Court of Appeal as we strongly believe McLaren has done nothing wrong.

?It is our belief that justice will prevail and that McLaren will not be penalised.?
I'm tired of this entire soap opera...
 
Ron writes really long letters.

McLaren have publicly accused Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix earlier this year with an illegal car and claim the Italian team are now deliberately providing the media with misleading information aimed at tarnishing McLaren's reputation.

For the first time since the spying scandal began last month, McLaren have disclosed in public their detailed version of the events in the affair that is currently being contested between the Woking-based outfit and their rivals Ferrari.

In a lengthy letter made public by McLaren and addressed to the president of the Italian motorsport authority ACI-CSAI Luigi Macaluso, McLaren CEO Ron Dennis heavily criticises Ferrari for spreading what he says is misleading information that is aimed at damaging McLaren's reputation.

"McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari," Dennis writes.

"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."

Dennis defends his team's behaviour in saying McLaren's only knowledge of information leaked by ex-Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney was regarding the floor device on the Ferrari car at the Australian Grand Prix.

Dennis defines Stepney's actions as 'whistle-blowing' and says such behaviour should be encouraged in Formula One, not stopped, and accuses Ferrari of winning the Australian Grand Prix with an illegal car.

"Were it not for Mr Stepney drawing this illegal device to the attention of McLaren ... there is every reason to suppose that Ferrari would have continued to race with an illegal car," Dennis writes.

"It is in the interests of F1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow."

But Dennis is equally adamant that his team has no knowledge of the 780-page dossier that Stepney had given Coughlan at the end of April this year, and the McLaren CEO says Coughlan had acted against the explicit instructions of his supervisors and without involving or benefiting the McLaren team.

"Let me make it clear," Dennis writes, "McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA.

"However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that."

Below is the full letter from Dennis to Macaluso:

1 August 2007

Dear Mr Macaluso,

ARTICLE 151C OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE

I refer to your letter dated 30 July 2007 to Mr Mosley of the FIA and to Mr Mosley's reply to you dated 31 July 2007, both of which were published on the FIA website yesterday without McLaren being given any opportunity at all to comment on this exchange of letters.

In your letter to the FIA you state that you "find it quite difficult to justify how a team has not been penalised while it has been found in breach of clause 151c of the International Sporting Code."

As it is apparent from your letter that you have only heard Ferrari's version of events, I would like to set the record straight and to explain to you in some detail why it was entirely fair that McLaren was not penalised and why it would in fact also have been fair if McLaren had not been found to be in breach of Article 151c at all.

Since this matter first came to light, McLaren has been completely open with Ferrari and the FIA and has cooperated to the fullest extent in the investigation of the facts.

At the hearing before the World Motor Sport Council, I and senior members of McLaren's staff gave evidence and were cross-examined by the Council and by Ferrari. We presented to the Council and to Ferrari all of McLaren's relevant documentary records for consideration. All of this evidence was fully tested at the hearing.

Our evidence makes it completely clear that the true facts of this matter are as follows:

"Whistleblowing" in March 2007

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.

Mr Coughlan immediately told McLaren's senior management about Mr Stepney's allegations. McLaren took steps to confirm whether the allegations were true, and we concluded that they were. Accordingly we reported these two matters to the FIA, adopting the customary practice of asking the FIA Technical Department for their opinion.

As regards the rear wing separator, the FIA subsequently ruled that this was compliant with the Technical Regulations. However the FIA ruled that this floor device was illegal. You will appreciate the significance of this.

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.

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.

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.

As regards the floor device, Mr Stepney revealed that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device at the Australian Grand Prix and no doubt for the rest of the season. He acted properly and in the interests of the sport in "blowing the whistle" about this. No team can expect their employees to keep quiet if they suspect - correctly in this case - that their employers are breaching the rules of the sport.

Ferrari have also complained in the press that McLaren and I in particular should have disclosed to Ferrari that it was Mr Stepney who blew the whistle on their illegal floor device. They also criticise me for entering a gentlemen's agreement in April 2007 about how to conduct technical complaints without revealing that it was Mr Stepney who made the disclosures in March.

For reasons which must be obvious to anyone fair minded, I reject these criticisms absolutely. I did not think it correct to disclose the name of the whistle-blower to Ferrari as it is not in the interests of Formula 1 for members of teams to feel that they cannot disclose instances of illegal activity without risking their name being disclosed to their employer. It is in the interests of Formula 1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow.

What McLaren did do was to take steps immediately after learning of the contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan in March 2007 to ensure that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan ceased having any contact.

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.

In summary, faced with clear information that Ferrari was proposing to use an illegal device, McLaren acted entirely properly, indeed we acted with considerable restraint. If any criticism is to be made, then I suggest that you should reflect carefully on the conduct of your licence holder, Ferrari, which appears to have won the Australian Grand Prix by racing with an illegal device.

The "Ferrari Documents"

I turn now to the events which occurred later in the year between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan and in particular to the provision of a "dossier" of Ferrari Documents by Mr Stepney to Mr Coughlan at a meeting in Barcelona on Saturday 28 April 2007.

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.

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.

On Saturday 28th April 2007, Mr Coughlan went to Barcelona and met Mr Stepney. Only Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney know what truly happened at that meeting. So far as McLaren was concerned, however, when Mr Coughlan returned to work, he told Mr Neale that his meeting with Mr Stepney had achieved its objective and he believed that Mr Stepney would not contact him again.

After this, no-one at McLaren heard anything more about contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan until 3 July 2007. Everyone at McLaren assumed that the issue of Mr Stepney contacting Mr Coughlan to express grievances had been resolved.

On 3 July 2007, Ferrari executed a search order at Mr Coughlan's home and seized two CDs containing Ferrari Documents. I emphasise that these documents were found at Mr Coughlan's home. No Ferrari Documents were found at McLaren's offices.

As is now in the public domain, Mr Coughlan has admitted that Mr Stepney gave him a dossier of Ferrari Documents in Barcelona which he took for his own private reasons, he says "engineering curiosity".

He kept these Documents at his home, and later with the assistance of his wife copied onto two CDs at a shop near their home, before shredding the originals using a home shredder and burning them in his back garden. Mr Coughlan says that he made no use of the Documents at work and that no one else at McLaren knew that he had taken the Documents.

Since Ferrari discovered that Mr Coughlan had the Ferrari Documents at his home, it has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to maximise the damage to McLaren, no doubt hoping to gain some advantage for the World Championship.

In particular, Ferrari has alleged, without any justification, that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done and that McLaren made some use of the Documents. 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.

As regards Ferrari's allegation that other McLaren staff were aware of what Mr Coughlan had done, in its statements to the press, Ferrari has tried to confuse the March 2007 whistle-blowing by Mr Stepney (which McLaren did know about) with the events on and following 28 April 2007 (which Mr Coughlan kept completely secret).

Let me make it clear: McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA. However that has nothing to do with what Mr Coughlan did on and after 28 April 2007. McLaren management and staff had no knowledge whatsoever about that.

In addition to this, Ferrari has tried to latch on to two instances where Mr Coughlan has stated that he showed single pages which he says were from the Ferrari Documents to two other McLaren staff: Mr Taylor (another McLaren engineer who had previously worked with Mr Coughlan when they were both at Ferrari) and Mr Neale (Mr Coughlan's superior).

The Council has fully investigated these instances, and concluded quite rightly that neither Mr Taylor nor Mr Neale were aware that the single pages they were shown were Ferrari confidential information, still less that they were part of a dossier of several hundred pages which Mr Coughlan had secretly received and kept at his house.

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.

As for Mr Neale, he had an informal meeting at a restaurant on 25 May 2007 to discuss a request Mr Coughlan had made for an early release from his contract of employment with McLaren.

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.

I turn then to Ferrari's allegation that McLaren somehow made use of the Ferrari Documents which Mr Coughlan kept secretly at his home.

Mr Coughlan himself is categoric that he made no use of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car. Mr Coughlan's job related to the management of drawing production by the design staff and their sign off prior to issue to our production facilities. He did not have responsibility for the performance enhancement of the car.

This function lies with the Chief Engineers and R&D Team who report to the Engineering Director, Patrick Lowe, who provided detailed evidence to the World Motor Sport Council. An important part of Mr Coughlan's job was, however, monitoring the testing and reliability of the car throughout the year.

In addition to this functional analysis, McLaren had conducted a very thorough physical and electronic search (conducted by Kroll) and a thorough engineering study conducted by Patrick Lowe to see if any of the Ferrari Documents were or are at McLaren or if any use of such documents has actually been made in relation to the McLaren car.

This investigation has confirmed that none of the Ferrari Documents were at McLaren as opposed to at Mr Coughlan's home and that there is no possibility that any of the information in those Documents could have been used on any development on the McLaren car.

At the hearing, McLaren demonstrated clearly to the satisfaction of the World Motor Sport Council that no use whatsoever has been made of any of the contents of the Ferrari documents in the McLaren car.

Accordingly, Ferrari's continued allegations in the press that McLaren has made use of the Ferrari Documents are entirely false.

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.

These are the facts. Although McLaren does not know for sure what Mr Stepney's purpose was in passing the Ferrari Documents to Mr Coughlan and what Mr Coughlan's purpose was in receiving them, McLaren does know for sure that Mr Coughlan acted secretly and that the Ferrari Documents were not used in the McLaren car but that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan were looking to leaving Ferrari and McLaren to join another team.

It is fact that Mr Coughlan never passed the Ferrari documents to anyone else at McLaren or told anyone at McLaren that he had these documents. It is fact that no-one at McLaren knew that Mr Coughlan had received any documents from Mr Stepney on the 28th April. It is fact that Mr Coughlan had been told by his superior Mr Neale to stop all contact with Mr Stepney straight after the Australian Grand Prix.

Other matters

Your letter also suggests that the outcome might have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those offered. I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.

First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages.

Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents.

In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.

In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence.

It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.

I therefore simply do not understand what basis there is for Ferrari's claim that it was denied an opportunity to put its case. It put its case both in writing and orally.

I respectfully ask you and the ACI-CSAI to look at the hard facts of this matter in an objective and fair manner rather than being influenced by selective and misleading statements put out with the object of damaging McLaren.

The reason McLaren was not penalised is that the World Motor Sport Council rightly concluded that it should not be blamed for Mr Coughlan's actions. It based its decision on solid facts and not false innuendo. McLaren's reputation has been unfairly sullied by incorrect press reports from Italy and grossly misleading statements from Ferrari.

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.

We believe that the Ferrari press releases, the leaks to the Italian press and recent events have been damaging to Formula 1 as well as McLaren. The World Championship should be contested on the track not in Courts or in the press.

We will naturally present our case before the FIA Court of Appeal as we strongly believe McLaren has done nothing wrong. It is our belief that justice will prevail and that McLaren will not be penalised.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Dennis CBE
Group Chairman and CEO

Copy:
Max Mosley, President FIA
Jean Todt, CEO Ferrari SpA
 
Top