McLaren summoned by the WMSC

[Brogan]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is why the whole team has been charged when it was apparently all down to Dave Ryan (and Hamilton)?

When McLaren were charged in 2007 over the Ferrari IP which they received from Nigel Stepney, why weren't Ferrari charged with anything?
Nigel Stepney was after all a Ferrari employee at the time.

As McLaren the team are now being charged with a breach of article 151c due to Dave Ryan's actions then surely Ferrari should have been similarly charged due to Nigel Stepney's actions?
I am struggling to see why the 2 cases are different.

 

[teabagyokel]

you're right about the implications for macca Bro. but the implications for F1 could be much bigger. cos it would confirm some people's thoughts that FIA has it in for macca. and that is potentially far more damaging for f1 then any punishment for macca.

right now it seems clear FIA does not has it in for macca, just think of the ECU supplied by Macca to all other teams and the fact the team was not punished as harshly as it could have been in 2007. but that could change, and then F1 really has an issue.

I can't see that it is "clear" in any way that the FIA does not have it in for McLaren, I'm not convinced that there was the "smoking gun" in 2007 that the FIA/media implied there was and they did change the F1 rules in the aftermath of Spa-Francorchamps last year to boot Hamilton off the top step! I dunno if there is a conspiracy, but 50-50 decisions have tended to go against McLaren, and I'd imagine the FIA are pretty annoyed that Hamilton won the Championship last year.

McLaren will be back even if they're excluded for '09, they'll just see it as an opportunity for the 2010 car to be developed, and I think Vodafone might just sue the FIA as McLaren will be able to claim its not their fault they're kicked out, imo.

On the subject of Hamilton, btw, boga, what the hell does the guy have to do? In Budapest, you have a go at him for disobeying his team, now you have a go for obeying his team. Easy to decide what's right with hindsight isn't it? Put yourself in a situation where your boss tells the auditors something that is a lie in front of you and then they ask you the same question... what do you do? This is what the FIA said happened! You've believed everything the FIA have said but for the fact that they do not blame Hamilton for this!

 

[Brogan]

Please let's try and keep this thread clear of Hamilton's involvement/actions.
This thread can be used for that: Hamilton demoted again!

Thanks all

 

[teabagyokel]

Sorry, Brogan, I just don't want to see this site turning into VIOVI!

I've put forward the Nigel Stepney argument for two years, it seems that entrappment is a well accepted part of F1, and I'm not sure that he didn't have the backing of Ferrari. McLaren were beating them in both Championships at the time, and Spygate always stunk to me, particularly since the outcome of it all was Ferrari winning both Championships. I think McLaren are made an example of far too many times, Ferrari were clearly engineering a situation that McLaren would get thrown out in 2007, and I doubt anyone is 100% honest in stewards' rooms. However, the likelihood is the expulsion of McLaren due to the WMSC being pretty annoyed that they were persuaded not to 2 years ago!

 

[RickD]

I agree with Teabag on this. Brogan - I don't think you can seperate Hamilton/McLaren and what has/is happening to them unfortunately as it seems part and parcel of the way the FIa have treated them both.

 

[Brogan]

I agree with Teabag on this. Brogan - I don't think you can seperate Hamilton/McLaren and what has/is happening to them unfortunately as it seems part and parcel of the way the FIa have treated them both.

That's true RickD but the WMSC have only summoned McLaren the team and not Hamilton so I want to try and keep the focus on that rather than the incident which triggered this whole mess.
The FIA have made it fairly clear that they don't intend to issue any more punishment to Hamilton and are making a clear distinction between him and the team.

 

[RickD]

Yes, but in that regard, if they ban McLaren for even one race, then they are punishing Hamilton.

 

[Boyle]

I can't see Mclaren getting off lightly here I'm afraid. Thrown out of the Constructors' (perhaps for next season too) and a fine I would think. Surely it won't be more severe than that?

 

[Amdathlonuk]

Personally I'll be VERY surprised if they aren't thrown out this year.

I find it hard to beleive the way Mclaren just seem to roll over a take it though. I realise this whole situation is down to one of their employees but I feel there are other issues which they could protest on yet never seem to...... odd.

 

[teabagyokel]

Personally I'll be VERY surprised if they aren't thrown out this year.

I find it hard to beleive the way Mclaren just seem to roll over a take it though. I realise this whole situation is down to one of their employees but I feel there are other issues which they could protest on yet never seem to...... odd.

Amdathlonuk, there's no point protesting anything in F1 because the original court = the appeals court and McLaren know this! Its an utterly ludicrous situation and if I were McLaren I'd be filing all sorts of crap at CAS's door, but the fact that the FIA act as judge, jury, executioner and prosecutor doesn't help the defence one iota!

 

[bogaTYR]

here is a new piece of information. i think macca are in for a serious bad time in front of the WMSC

In the first detailed account of the stewards' hearings that have resulted in McLaren being called before the FIA's World Motor Sport Council, AUTOSPORT reports that Ryan and Hamilton stuck to their original story when recalled for the second hearing.

An FIA source told AUTOSPORT: "First of all, Lewis heard the radio exchange. It appeared that the strategy was to be extremely vague and not be very direct with the answers. Then the interview where he said, 'I was told to let him through' was played.

"At that point they both got very uncomfortable, but still denied that's what had actually happened.

"It was a bit surreal, this situation where you had the radio evidence and the interview, and they were putting a completely different interpretation on what the words actually meant. But the words were very, very clear."

FIA race director Charlie Whiting has also revealed that Hamilton denied more than once in the original hearing in Australia that he had let Trulli pass him.

Whiting said: "When asked very clearly, 'Did you consciously let him past, did you pull over to let him past', he [Hamilton] said, 'No'. The question was asked more than once. He was adamant that he hadn't slowed down and hadn't let Trulli past."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74368

sorry bro, i do hope this is the right thread. if not. let me know or just move the thing.

 

[Brogan]

Not much new there as far as I can see.
It's no different to what the FIA reported a few days ago except a bit more fleshed out.

We already know they stuck to their story after being played the radio recordings.

Concerning this statement: Whiting said: "When asked very clearly, 'Did you consciously let him past, did you pull over to let him past', he [Hamilton] said, 'No'. The question was asked more than once. He was adamant that he hadn't slowed down and hadn't let Trulli past."

As I keep saying, the FIA could put this to bed once and for all by releasing the telmetry from both cars.
Why won't they? It would be in everyone's interests to do so.

I expect that is the angle the McLaren lawyers will use when it goes before the WMSC.
It will be very easy to argue that Hamilton didn't "consciously" let him past and any lawyer worth his salt should be able to make that stick.

The onboard footage I have seen does not support Trulli's claims that Hamilton slowed suddenly and pulled over. See here: http://cliptheapex.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551#p4565
Without telemetry it is impossible to prove either way so the FIA are approaching this in a very strange way by not releasing the telemetry data.

Still, it's normal for the FIA to be selective in the data they release to support their claims.
Like last year when they charged Vettel with driving into Massa and only released the onboard footage from Vettel's car.

I'll just be glad when this whole sorry nonsense is over.
No doubt it's going to be extremely bad for McLaren though, I hope the FIA will be satisfied with the end result.

 

[Amdathlonuk]

"It was a bit surreal, this situation where you had the radio evidence and the interview, and they were putting a completely different interpretation on what the words actually meant. But the words were very, very clear."

FIA race director Charlie Whiting has also revealed that Hamilton denied more than once in the original hearing in Australia that he had let Trulli pass him.

Whiting said: "When asked very clearly, 'Did you consciously let him past, did you pull over to let him past', he [Hamilton] said, 'No'. The question was asked more than once. He was adamant that he hadn't slowed down and hadn't let Trulli past."

This sounds about right, if you listen to the radio conversation I believe LH and MC are discussing the issue and before LH has a chance to respond he says ' I let him through already'.
However this COULD be construed as LH had already let him pass before he had a chance to slow down, i.e he didn't attempt to stop Trulli going through..... but worded as such it sounds like he didn't STOP him passing.

IMHO.

 

[teabagyokel]

First of all, boga, please don't confuse the word "new" with the phrase "exactly the same as we've been working on for the last week" when regarding the information.

Whiting said: "When asked very clearly, 'Did you consciously let him past, did you pull over to let him past', he [Hamilton] said, 'No'. The question was asked more than once. He was adamant that he hadn't slowed down and hadn't let Trulli past."

There is no proof that he has slowed down and let Trulli past - is Whiting implying that this is the lie. If so, then the case is untenable. I took the lie to be in answer to the question "Was there an instruction to pass the Toyota?" which there was. As proved in Budapest 2007, McLaren telling Hamilton to do something does not imply that he did it.

I notice that Hamilton said "I already let him past" on the radio transmission, although that doesn't prove that he slowed down, only that Trulli went through. The telemetry from BOTH cars & the radio transmission from Trulli is important with regards this.

I am tempted to think that Hamilton did let Trulli past, but with the evidence so far, it cannot be proven. Frankly, this whole débacle could have been solved by not asking anyone for testimony - they didn't need Hamilton & Ryan there to ascertain what exactly happened on track. Everyone in sport would lie in any situation such as this - use the evidence of your eyes stewards!

I'm a little fed up of raking over this old ground however!