McLaren investigation (beating the dead horse? sorry...)

[Project Four]

Not wishing to start any (more) conspiracy theories, but Ferrari briefed Italian journalists who then printed stories undermining Mclaren and then Mclaren briefed journalists on the Mclaren / Renault spygate trying to undermine Renault.

But, FIA and Mosley only went after Mclaren ?

Funny that

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, you know how Mr. Rubython is. Tom is right: he really hates something about Bishop, or that's the impression I get. Anyway, it's a juicy story, but it seems to me it has the juice of the forbidden apple of Eden. Anyway, this thread is not too technical, if I may add. It's more about "communicating impressions" (short for "gossip" ).

Project Four raises a good point: why crack down on McLaren and not on Ferrari? Well, guess who is on probation. Clue: it's not Ferrari.

Besides the story was published verbatim in many websites. I think it was published here. You can imagine what Briatore and Mosley thought. I know what I thought when I read the story about Renault copying and analyzing McLaren plans: "Holy guacamole".

[P_O_L]

interesting read but im not suprised. Ive rarely read more self-indulged articles than from mr Bishop. He was the sole reason i made a point never to buy another issue of F1 racing.

Ive rarely read columns from a more xenophobic author than NIgel Roebuck. He was the sole reason i stopped subscribing to autosport and i almost danced from joy hearing hed leave Autosport. I dont know much about Damien Smith but i do know he wrote a lot of garbage as well.

Around Melbourne 98 there was a lot of tension anyway. I remember it was not just the 3rd brakepedal or the race collusion claims that was threatening mclaren. A lot of bad air came from Jerez 97 and not bcs if michales bang with jacq, but more the outcome of the race. Dennis and williams where accused of letting hakkinen win the race. what is sure and weird is DC letting mika get by.

Dennis and his drivers claiming that self-declared control freak Dennis let his drivers decide whod win the race was also very hard to believe. Finally last year Dennis admitted making DC move over with a direct order (in a very showcase way on the main straight, almost to show the world that he was not pleased with it).

Then dc blatantly holding up of shumi at spa 98 for more than a lap, and slowing down at an imposisble spot made me start to resent mclarens ways bigtime. Ferrrai at least made no bones about prefertial treatment.

And while you say Ferrari asked for clarification on various mclaren parts, it is also more than true the other way round. The barge board saga end of 99 (where ferrari was cleared), the mass damper, the fuel temp issue, ferraris moving floor to name a few. Then there is the chetaing issue. Mlaren saying nobody has used or seen the info while in the meantime half the simulator working staff was enterting 'the red cars'' data in the machine, the disqualification of dc at brasil 2000, Dc asked to move over yet again at france 2003 and then theres the moving rear wings at the start of 2000 and neweys way of loopholing the new regs by putting fins on top of the nose to comply with minimum height rules.
Now theres even more evidence mclaren tried, by the hands of bishop, to defame Renault with ridiculous figures, the plain idiotic statement of lewis "nobody at mclaren or me wants to win in the courtroom and take the championship away from kimi"" while that was exactly what mclarens lawyer asked at the fia hearing you can do nothing more than conclude mclarens bizzniz is shady to say the least. Their invention of the pitboxscreens, the resistance against FIA changes to improve the show also proves they dont do one jot for the fans. I really dont like them. Hope Dennis leaves quick. Bishop and him are made for eachother.

[NickT]

POL you've got me ROTFLMAO again

For a guy that likes to use the word "xenophobic" I don't think I have ever come across more "xenophobic" posts towards a team and its staff than yours. I loved your comments on the journalists to, they had me in stiches, LMAO? no, I nearly wet myself

Now I'd like to hazard a guess here, its a bit of a wild stab in the dark, but I think you might just be a Ferrari supporter? Go on you've got these rose tinted glasses on haven't you?

Keep up the good work

[Project Four]

Why yes P_O_L I had totally forgotten about the Malaysian barge boards.

Wasn't they illegal when they were fitted to the cars at the end of the race but within tolerance and now legal when at the Court of Appeal and not fitted to the cars ????

[checkered]

I don't know if this long story will revive this thread, but it's juicy.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/bishop.htm

I wonder just when

that story was written originally? I had already pushed that episode from my active memory and albeit it provided some interesting details (in addition to recounting the story, possible bias aside, pretty accurately according to my own perceptions), the whole thing very much became a distraction from the main industrial espionage/IP theft issue and the hard questions it entails. I still feel some of the main lessons - not to mention facts - remain unlearned.

Not very many journalists came out of the very unnecessary deviation smelling like roses. Whether that warrants a lifetime of distrust is another matter, especially in such sorry little tales as this PR effort was. Reading the "unofficial McLaren briefing" I originally thought it was a sort of an indirect protest against (or an ironic take on) what the team (more or less rightly, depending on the action) saw as underhanded tactics during their trials on the accused bench. I only revised my original perception after much of the media had taken the "Bishop briefing" completely at face value, something that quite shocked me. No wonder Autosport moved pretty quickly in "outing" him as the author.

I don't usually go about repeating myself but now, against the timeline, perhaps there's a point to it. Takes from the " Renault in new spy scandal " thread ...

It's a bit funny and a bit sad to see how much some people (even journalists) still smart over the McLaren spy decisions and thus are willing to jump to equally ill adviced conclusions, processes and solutions out of spite for the precedent! There's just little to no logic there and not judging the Renault case by its own merits will only harm the sport further. If the "original" spy case wasn't handled wisely (and there are too many opinions about this for me to specify here why and how I agree or disagree with that blanket statement, see the original thread if interested) are we not to learn from those mistakes to get a form of revenge on the whole sport collectively?

Some are also quick to say that this is an entirely comparable case. We know too little of this to date to say that. Heck, we know too little of the "original" case to know that (and you can read something into my opinions in that statement alone).

I'd rather not see people trying to make it appear that tying all these events together in order to rewrite history is in the best interest of the sport. Nor trying to portray the Renault case in terms solely aimed at a potential revision of a separate case. It's not only the FIA that has taken decisions that are problematic, to say the least, considering the future of F1. The teams that are directly involved have overplayed their hands in a glaring manner, and they're doing no services to anyone.

Two inaccuracies, a misinterpretation,

an error and an issue warranting clarification. I don't quite understand what McLaren's leadership and legal representation is trying to get at with all this, since what has undeniably (by Renault's own admission alone) happened clearly merits a WMDC hearing and in light of the recent precedent, also some sort of action seems overwhelmingly likely. In a position of some strategic strength, they have seemingly managed to invent weaknesses that didn't have to exist in the first place.

The corrections provide some further insight into the infringement of the sporting code and to the McLaren IP improperly transferred to the Renault premises. I found it surprising to begin when it was first suggested that 11 floppy disks could've accommodated 780 drawings, given the file sizes of such drawings generated by the most common programs intended for design purposes. There's little point in saying those drawings could be printed on 762 pages; what's the size of those pages, what's the scale? I could print a drawing onto as many pages as I want, regardless of the information within. There were 18 separate individual drawings (of unspecified file types) among 33 separate files within that material, plus (an indefinite, but apparently not significant enough a number to specify) hard copies (apparently of McLaren's damper design) taken and emails sent from an unspecified location to an unspecified destination, either containing the same, or different information.

...

Rather than containing the "entire technical blueprint of the 2006 and 2007 McLaren car", the content turns out to be a set of drawings and a confidential MP4-22 specification document (in writing?) together "constituting a technical definition of the fundamental layout of the 2007 McLaren car and the technical details of its innovative and performance enhancing systems." Now, I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I expect McLaren has made sure that the FIA will find that definition technically acceptable to describe the content accurately. Try describing a wingnut, for example, in drawings and in writing in such a way that put together what you have produced defines a fundamental layout and details specifying its innovative and performance enhancing features. There are simpler ways to go about describing things.

But perhaps my perception of what makes sense to a casual observer of the sport is skewed by the sheer amount of documentation I've familiarised myself with during the various proceedings. I can't very well warrant anyone to go through the same. What I can tell with confidence is that behind all the scandal I came to perceive a very human and a very fallible sport and business. For all the disillusionment, I have been able to take comfort in seeing the scaffolding behind the imposing billboards and facades of Formula One. There's also a "karmic" element to the events, parts of which I'm sure have yet to unfold in full - forks in the road, choices between redemptive actions and more trials and tribulations.

As for P_O_L's criticism of certain media people, I think you're somewhat missing the point. If you think you perceive the particular standpoint of any one journalist for example, no matter how disagreeable he/she might be to your sensibilities, there's no greater value than reading him/her. Why? Because then you can "underess" the content of any possible bias and arrive at very educated approximations about the true state of things. I tend to follow certain journalists very closely and get to "know" them for this very purpose. If your temperament allows for this without adverse effects, I can recommend trying out the "tuning out the noise" approach. In fact, I have to admit to doing that to some of your posts as well.

Tom, that's a nice quote and one with which I tend to agree with - even though I'm not a "Hello" reader. I'd expand on it a bit and state that even gossip can be learned from if you can observe it beyond its mere content.

[Belatti]

chekered words.

Amen.

[Conceptual]

To illustrate one of Checkered's points, its like watching FOX News here in the USA. I only watch it because it is the easiest elite-controlled media outlet to spot the horse----.

Remember, the whistle blower case that exhonerated FOX News "won" on account of the fact that the Supreme Court decided that it is not illegal for US "News" sources to completely fabricate stories, as well as report known falsehoods, even though they are painting a product as the greatest thing in the world, despite the companies OWN DOCUMENTATION that their product causes cancer in children.

Disgusting, but at lease you KNOW they are only feeding you horse----.

Chris

[P_O_L]

As for P_O_L's criticism of certain media people, I think you're somewhat missing the point. If you think you perceive the particular standpoint of any one journalist for example, no matter how disagreeable he/she might be to your sensibilities, there's no greater value than reading him/her. Why? Because then you can "underess" the content of any possible bias and arrive at very educated approximations about the true state of things. I tend to follow certain journalists very closely and get to "know" them for this very purpose. If your temperament allows for this without adverse effects, I can recommend trying out the "tuning out the noise" approach. In fact, I have to admit to doing that to some of your posts as well.

But if the content stays the same for many years, to the point roebuck starts to compare schumacher to nazi wartime officers, wich prompted various subscribers to cal it a day, i think im entitled to quit myself too. Aside from that roebuck was only good at quoting other people. Himself he had rarely anything susbstantial to add to a conversation.

Bishops columns usually went about how he, the great matt bishop, did this and that, and how great it was that he, the great matt bishop, had discovered it. Usually very little journalistic content and simply a waste of time reading, other than discovering he was a huge mclaren fan and, in good haymarket tradition as autosport also has a hand of treating mclaren different than ferrari in similar circumstances like teamorders, finding out F1 racing was also some sort of mclaren pr magazine. A waste of time and money. On top of that my accusation of Autosport and matt bishop acting as mclarens personal pr-magazine a few weeks ago and then reading the article above now, that Bishop indeed used haymarketing as mclarens own pr-tool, is evidence my assumption isnt such a weird one after all.

I have read similar things of damien smith although when i was subscribed, he was stil a rookie reporter. dunno about hi now. I used to like Mark Hughes but he also ventured off into unreadable reports. Tne theres anthony rowlinson, another mclaren fan boy writing too much coloured crap, a treat from many british journalists. Whatever happened to the rule that news gathering and bringing it as uncouloured as possible was a journalist job?

Another former haymarket dude, andrew benson, is a prime example of wasted time and author of so much couloured columns he even forgets the audience he was writing for and writes public love letters to lewis hamilton:...and it doesnt matter lewis, if you dont win this championship because your time will come. you will win many, many championships." As if winning one championship isnt difficult enough, according to benson hell win many, many championships. From the 20 items on the F1 section, some 17 where about hamilton. WHen kimi won a race, the first 7 paragraphs where about hamilton and then a vage notion about kimi winning the race. You cant filter out any noise there as it is served as a main dish man.

Autosport once even published a guest article from Phil Collins, where he went on an ranted away against Michael Schumacher. Why? Shumi apparently refused to have Collins over for a cup of tea in his Swiss home close to Collins own summer home.

Readings like that belong in Hello magazine, not in supposedly serious sport reporting sections of a once respected organisation like the BBC or Autosport.

[Project Four]

I do believe that any news you read if you ar not careful, you can read it from your own perspective and from your judgements.

If we come to a story believing that Mclaren (for example) are corrupt, liars, low-life, cheats, then within any story we will find elements to support our case. If the stories are written by people whom take a similar side, or point of view as ours, then these are the facts that substantiate our case. But, if however we read a story that does not support our case and takes the other sides case, then here we can also support our case as here this is propaganda spread by the other side, and not someone else’s opinions or point-of-view, or take on the event.

Of course there also will be some UK bias within the UK F1 press as they will come at any news from an Anglo-centric point-of-view. They would have ready / better access to the UK guys involved in F1, and no doubt have formed close bonds with these people. And this would be same for the German press, the French press, and for the Italian press, you only have to look at which drivers the different press rate as the best in the world.

I have always rated Nigel Roebuck as an exceptional writer along with Mark Hughes.
If you do read any of Roebuck’s articles you will know of his love for F1 and for the Ferrari, he does though, I agree, criticise Ferrari, but this is on the basis of how Ferrari operate, the FIA preferential treatment / favouritism taken towards Ferrari and to its drivers, how and when they used team-orders, the behaviour and actions of their drivers, etc.

[P_O_L]

I do believe that any news you read if you ar not careful, you can read it from your own perspective and from your judgements.

If we come to a story believing that Mclaren (for example) are corrupt, liars, low-life, cheats, then within any story we will find elements to support our case. If the stories are written by people whom take a similar side, or point of view as ours, then these are the facts that substantiate our case. But, if however we read a story that does not support our case and takes the other sides case, then here we can also support our case as here this is propaganda spread by the other side, and not someone else’s opinions or point-of-view, or take on the event.

Of course there also will be some UK bias within the UK F1 press as they will come at any news from an Anglo-centric point-of-view. They would have ready / better access to the UK guys involved in F1, and no doubt have formed close bonds with these people. And this would be same for the German press, the French press, and for the Italian press, you only have to look at which drivers the different press rate as the best in the world.

I have always rated Nigel Roebuck as an exceptional writer along with Mark Hughes.
If you do read any of Roebuck’s articles you will know of his love for F1 and for the Ferrari, he does though, I agree, criticise Ferrari, but this is on the basis of how Ferrari operate, the FIA preferential treatment / favouritism taken towards Ferrari and to its drivers, how and when they used team-orders, the behaviour and actions of their drivers, etc.

Ive been subscribed to Autosport a long, long time and there where many years i rated Roebuck. But eversince 98 he changed his tune considerably and if he was consistent in his believes okay. But defending mclarens no race tactics and dcs moving over in race 1 of the championship with the words:""..people where angry with mclaren but they seem to forget the point mclaren did not come to melbourne to entertain. They came to melbourne to win the championship as consumately as possible."" And then read his column after Ferraris no race tactics and rubens moving over in race 6 of the championship :""...Rubens really deserved this win and Ferrari with a car like that, have an onbligation to entertain the public and the fans.."" is simply plain hypocrite and his behaviour cannot be judged differently than that he has some sort of grudge against Ferrari and or schumacher. You either are for entertainment or not.

And as a Dutchman who follows his own media, German media, French media and British media to some extend, i can safely say that the biased coverage is nowhere nearly as tainted as in the UK. It was the case with Jenson Button but last year with Lewis it was even worse. And while i dont mind from time to time, im a big williams F1 fan and think Dc and Davidson are hugely underrated drivers, nobody else got any column inches but mr hamilton. From the sun i can understand, but the BBC? Hell, even THE most patriotic Lewis loving F1 media ITV had the decency to run specials about kimi, to let all UK drivers have their say but not andrew benson and bbc motorsport. It was BBC unworthy really. The Germans can brag about shumi & co but they have an eye for others. The French are full of praise over Hamilton. The Dutch are not too big to totally trash Albers or verstappen and spyker.

[Conceptual]

I read alot of crying, but not alot of substance...

Am I alone in thinking that about this thread?

Chris

[NickT]

I read alot of crying, but not alot of substance...

Am I alone in thinking that about this thread?

Chris

No, you are not.

[Project Four]

Hi P_O_L, good post and a good use of quotes to back up your case.

But not wishing to be Roebuck’s spin doctor or continue the debate about the rights and wrongs of team orders. But, Mclaren use of team orders in 1998 was different to Ferrari’s in Austria 2002. In 1998 the Mclaren drivers had agreed that who ever got through the first corner first would win the race and Mika got through first and led the race. Mclaren then screwed up and called Mika into the pits when they were not ready for him handing the lead to DC. After discussing with the drivers DC agreed to hand the win to Mika because he had led through the first corner and because he had lost through the teams pit stop mistake. Now to Ferrari in 2002, here Rubens had dominate all weekend and lead the race from the start, Michael was leading the championship by nearly twice the points of second placed JP Montoya and had won the previous two championships, but still Rubens had to give the win to Michael. I think what people (Roebuck) found wrong with Ferrari’s use was how they did it (right at the end of race) and also there was no real need to do it, Michael was already in command of the championship and would have increased his lead in the championship by finishing second anyway. Yes, you could argue the same about Mclaren use of team order, but I feel here that firstly there was an agreement between the drivers and secondly Mika had lost the lead through no fault of his own but through a team mistake.

Now all teams have used, and will continue to use team orders; this is something else that you can not police. And, Ferrari, using team orders, have been / are mightily successful, but it comes down to fact that ok you win and you have something to show for it, but for your own respect it is also how you have won.

I do agree with you, that the UK press is bias in favour of British drivers and teams. For example this week in Autosport Damon Hill and Lewis are rated in their all time top ten rain masters EVER, but here this may not bias this may be there deeply felt view. But, you and I can’t do anything about it, so there is no point getting worked up about it. Just chill watch the sport you love and use a rich variety of the media to form your own opinions and do respect other people points of view.