Stepney is defiant - No 780 page dossier

[Rob W]

As I have said many many times in threads here, I don't actually think there is much evidence on Stepney regarding last year's espionage saga.

I think this is evident in the FIA deciding not to charge him over the affair.

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 38,00.html

Note: This has nothing to do with his innocence/guilt by the way, and I'm not defending him one bit - but his comments on the matter all along have been pretty defiant, something no-one would do if there really was the mountain of evidence against them that is claimed by some parties.

In today's news he made two very interesting calls which I highly doubt would come from someone who'd been plainly caught and had no defense (I'm talking legally, not morally):

1 - he still denies that he passed the big whammy 780-page document, nor that he even knew about it.

2 - he made a pretty apt call in saying the "(The FIA) may want to do some due diligence themselves before simply accepting one side of the story." Especially since they took so long to even really get cracking on the investigation.

With the first point in mind, his comments last year implying that there were some other fishy business goings-on might be the iron defense he laid down and which have kept the FIA from charging him.. Perhaps something he can prove which involves other Ferrari people or dealings - as he's clearly alluded to once or twice.

I'm certain some more details of this saga will come out soon and which people will lose jobs over.

R

[Project Four]

Rob W I can not wait, for too long one team and only one has been kicked around for what all teams have done and will still do.

It is very strange that FIA aren't going to charge him over the affair, almost that there is a certain fear in the FIA that if charged information, will come out that we put them and others in a very bad light.

ps. Max do not spend your $100 M just yet, you may need it

[Rob W]

Just to clarify some points made last year and which have never been explained or resolved...

- The white powder Ferrari claimed they found near the fuel tank and on Stepney's pants.. what was it? A red herring?

- July 2007 he said: "I have confidence I’ll be cleared by the legal process that is now taking place..." - either he does know something we don't or he's incredibly stupid which I doubt given the success he's had in his job.

- At the beginning of the whole saga Ferrari claimed Stepney had disappeared when he'd actually booked a holiday through their own internal travel agent (which they have never disputed). Perhaps an early Ferrari attempt to paint him as shady?

- In late 2007 the FIA said it would "invite Stepney to show why he should not be banned from motorsport "for a lengthy period." - Do they have a short memory? Why come down so hard on McLaren and let Stepney off the hook so easily?.... unless of course he has something big to say (and which the FIA don't want him to say).

Some stuff to think about...

R

[checkered]

Well, at least the (non)sanctioning

bit can be explained away by the fact that Stepney never personally worked under any FIA licence (like the drivers and teams do) the terms of which he could've broken. That's why the affair falls under criminal and civil law of suitable countries, a path that the FIA need (and indeed should) not pursue for someone else. The 2007 FIA statement regarding punitive actions for Stepney (personal exclusion?) under sporting rules was clearly nonsensical to begin with (and the low key announcement might imply some shame about not picking up on this originally) and I'm actually happy about them finally arriving at this conclusion since I always viewed overlapping processes as unjust and generally harmful.

The fishiness of the whole business, I think, has been well established before now. Basically how the FIA went about the sporting side of things seemed to guarantee that it was in most people's interest to be as vague and noncommittal as possible. The interests that were protected in this manner clearly exceeded those of Ferrari alone, who seemed genuinely caught out by privileged information being leaked out and willingly received and requested for months on end (perhaps Stepney referring to "carelessness" covers Ferrari race tactics and such being transmitted by text messages and such to McLaren). Perhaps their frustration (along with other things) is exemplified in their dogged effort to pursue the "spy case" with means specifically beyond FIA's means and powers. Nothing much remains of this but living with the consequences and letting the chips fall where they may. Stepney is one big chip whose public exchanges with the FIA seldom make complete sense to an outside observer, one way or the other. Given the relevant events, I doubt that they've made absolute sense to the direct parties of those exchanges either.

Stepney seems to believe that nothing connects him to the 780 page dossier. That would be in his legal interest (and thus the personal need to promptly and publicly clarify FIA's latest statement implying otherwise), but with regard to the sporting side, Coughlan's, Alonso's, de la Rosa's etc. possession of the data in one form or another (nor info about Ferrari race tactics) isn't in doubt. Overall, the recent statements alone haven't made it any more likely that we'll get to the definite truth any time soon.

I had, once again, forgotten about the powder. I guess we'll just have to keep asking about it loudly enough until there's a definite answer from someone (mainly Italian authorities looking into it). Nigel Stepney's statement that he will publish the whole (of his side of the) truth in an upcoming book, rather than a court of law for example, appears a strange set of priorities for someone seeking to re-establish credibility. In time, we'll see the wisdom of this approach. I do believe that there are still some major karmic comeuppances on their way; such disregard was shown for F1, its general interest and the championship itself that the convulsions will catch up with people, or if the damage has been too great, F1 will indeed bring down many with itself. Forks in the road, choices to be made.

[Rob W]

the (non)sanctioning bit can be explained away by the fact that Stepney never personally worked under any FIA licence

Fair call.. but they could simply ban any team from employing him permanently despite this. They have every arbitrary power to do so. The fact they haven't says something to me.

Stepney seems to believe that nothing connects him to the 780 page dossier. That would be in his legal interest (and thus the personal need to promptly and publicly clarify FIA's latest statement implying otherwise)

I disagree. Any lawyer (or competent advisor) would tell him to either shut up about it to the media until the case was over - unless he was sure the end result would show his version of the stories to be valid (or at least prevent the opposition from proving anything).

...but with regard to the sporting side, Coughlan's, Alonso's, de la Rosa's etc. possession of the data in one form or another (nor info about Ferrari race tactics) isn't in doubt.

I agree with this too... but regarding Stepney, the FIA case proved that McLaren had the documents - not that Stepney had provided them. He said he didn't know about them and Ferrari have not esablished at all that he could even compile them without others knowing or there being an obvious trail. I find it hard to believe he could without there being a trail (we're expected to believe the trail of evidence which exonerated Renault aren't we?) of some sort. So, either Ferrari have a big gun ready for him in court - or he actually does have some defense which is making him act so confident/defiant.

I am really keen to see some excerpts from Stepneys book which will no doubt get 'leaked' in the coming months.

There is plenty more crap destined to hit the fan in my opinion.

R

[axle]

I think the FIA have said as much as they can, ie if you employ him we'll take a very dim view of it and no doubt not leave you alone...Stepney is better off seeking employment in IRL or a.n.other national motorsport program rather than an international one.

[miqi23]

Well he is working for Gigawave Racing at the moment. The team that runs Aston Martin DBR9.

[mcdenife]

Rob W wrote:

Fair call.. but they could simply ban any team from employing him permanently despite this. They have every arbitrary power to do so. The fact they haven't says something to me.

They cant ban anyone from employing anyone. All they can do is make a recommendation which they have done. To ban him (FIA licence or not) would not only be dangerous (for the FIA) but also illegal as it would be a serious breach of employment laws in almost every european country etc. The FIA is in effect nothing but a club of clubs (so to speak)and Stepney is not a competitor and is not employed by the FIA. Infact even with the recommendation the FIA has already overstepped the mark and they would almost certainly loose if Stepney were to take legal action (whether guilty of 780 docs or not).

...but with regard to the sporting side, Coughlan's, Alonso's, de la Rosa's etc. possession of the data in one form or another (nor info about Ferrari race tactics) isn't in doubt.

Like Rob, I agree but what data? The comms between them merely suggest there was contact between Coughlan and Stepney. Assuming this was relevant, there is nothing in there to suggest what passed between them. This added fact that the FIA accepted from the outset that both Stepney and Coughlan were rogue agents. We are yet to hear from Stepney and a lot of people and the FIA seem to be going to suspicious lengths to ensure he is not heard.

I agree with this too... but regarding Stepney, the FIA case proved that McLaren had the documents - not that Stepney had provided them

Sorry but I still disagree. The FIA did not prove Mclaren had/used documents but that everything they heard suggests they MAY have, Could have or at least were in a position. Certainly not enough to justify the punishment. In short their ruling implied that; 'sod the charge, this info was so valuable, sensitive, etc etc it was highly unlikely it was not used or influenced in some way or another'.

I asked once how come Stepney had not been charged. The response was that there was no evidence. When asked why Stepney was not heard or called, we were told he was a 'rogue element' and therefore unreliable. On what basis? The sad thing is no one is asking the obvious questions.
The FIA and Ferrari would have us believe he already admitted to providing the dosier.....thats theft at the very least. Yet Stepney remains a free man, is not out on bail pending investigation or anything like that. Why not?

I still believe there are other motives here(maybe to stop him joining Ross Brawn at Honda...who knows)and there is way more to this than meets the eye. Mclaren have been punished, have apologised and on the face of it admitted that it is possible some of the data from Coughlan MAY have permiatted more. But then again what choice did they have, they have a business to run and the FIA, being past masters at conjouring something out of nothing, would simply have made life hard for them simply to hide their incompetence (something this stepney challenge points to).
Everyones happy to move on. However expect to see/hear more on this from Ferrari (or its affiliates), if Mclaren have a better car than them this season.

[checkered]

Fair call.. but they could simply ban any team from employing him permanently despite this. They have every arbitrary power to do so. The fact they haven't says something to me.

Well, the FIA statement did

come across as very meek and even sheepish compared to the earlier language. But be careful, don't go about giving them any more ideas!

I disagree. Any lawyer (or competent advisor) would tell him to either shut up about it to the media until the case was over - unless he was sure the end result would show his version of the stories to be valid (or at least prevent the opposition from proving anything).

I'm having trouble getting my layman's head around this. Shouldn't Stepney have moved promptly to state this if he indeed has fundamental disagreements with FIA's assertions? What's the risk if he intends to steadfastly maintain his account of the events anyway?

... regarding Stepney, the FIA case proved that McLaren had the documents - not that Stepney had provided them. He said he didn't know about them and Ferrari have not esablished at all that he could even compile them without others knowing or there being an obvious trail.

Like Rob, I agree but what data? The comms between them merely suggest there was contact between Coughlan and Stepney. Assuming this was relevant, there is nothing in there to suggest what passed between them.

...

The FIA did not prove Mclaren had/used documents but that everything they heard suggests they MAY have, Could have or at least were in a position. Certainly not enough to justify the punishment. In short their ruling implied that; 'sod the charge, this info was so valuable, sensitive, etc etc it was highly unlikely it was not used or influenced in some way or another'.

I still believe there are other motives here(maybe to stop him joining Ross Brawn at Honda...who knows)and there is way more to this than meets the eye. Mclaren have been punished, have apologised and on the face of it admitted that it is possible some of the data from Coughlan MAY have permiatted more.

...

Everyones happy to move on. However expect to see/hear more on this from Ferrari (or its affiliates), if Mclaren have a better car than them this season.

I didn't finish my thought on that comparison properly, sorry about that. My intention was not to yet again embroil the F1T messageboard on a discussion on every possible merit and/or injustice of the "spy case(s)" (without additional information, "been there, done that") but to highlight what I see as a discrepancy between the sensationalism ("media-sexiness?") of Stepney's comments and the evident ramifications of the contents thereof. I.e. in this case, in the larger framework the element of doubt (restated by one party) as to the origins of the Ferrari dossier does nothing in real terms in getting to the bottom of anything.

As to the trail and usage of the information in the original case, it was established beyond a doubt by the drivers' own admissions. The impression remains that there was much more that didn't come to the light of day, but that this incomplete investigation result was enough on sporting grounds - and enabled a compromise that the teams were made to accept. (One of the enduring ironies for me in the whole freakin' thing was that McLaren and Ferrari never once seemed to stop and consider whether they had a common interest in a thorough and transparent investigation, not to mention a common stance towards the FIA and F1's commercial rights' holders by extension. Now, that could've been a position of strength. And who's to say it couldn't yet be?) The current status doesn't really hold water, but for the time being everyone is desperately pretending that the leaks will eventually trickle down and a flood won't rupture on some deeper interests of the sport.

I doubt Ross Brawn's new challenges even register on those scales, though Stepney joining him at Honda would make for some good soap-operatic drama.

[mcdenife]

As to the trail and usage of the information in the original case, it was established beyond a doubt by the drivers' own admissions.

On this I simply cannot agree. And I cannot see how PDL's testimony amounts to an admission.(Alonso' was written and not disclosed).

The impression remains that there was much more that didn't come to the light of day

Indeed, but this was the impression the FIA wished to convey. They had a couple hundred txts which was claimed to be the 'smoking gun' and that there is much in there they, the FIA, are not revealing. However the truth was that even they didnt and still dont know what was contained in those txt. So in effect the evidence wasnt in what passed between Coughlin, Stepney etc, which to mind IS the smoking gun, but that that something passed.
But all this is water under the bridge (for now at least) and I will continue to see this as a miscarriage, till I am presented with the 'smoking gun'.
The main issue now is the FIA/Ferrari versus Stepney.

Shouldn't Stepney have moved promptly to state this if he indeed has fundamental disagreements with FIA's assertions? What's the risk if he intends to steadfastly maintain his account of the events anyway?

Isnt that what his statement just did. He is saying the FIA have declared him guilty without a trial or a fair hearing, claiming he has admitted and apologised for his 'sins'and then effectively issues a warning to anyone who does any business with the FIA to 'employ him at your peril'. What happened to the so called transparency. What happened to the appearance Stepney was suppossed to attend. The FIA cancelled because the FIA had problems with 'flight arrangements' and next thing they issue a 'recommendation'. Regardless of what you think of Stepney, you have to admit that something smells.

[checkered]

On this I simply cannot agree. And I cannot see how PDL's testimony amounts to an admission.(Alonso' was written and not disclosed).

Didn't we have this

conversation already? I think we did and I'm certainly not going to debate this issue before I have a reason to do so coming from someone directly involved. Even my own perception of the whole affair is somewhat evolved since this last came up but I'll hold on to my opinions until such a time that I can again base the review of my position on something I didn't yet know. Token agreements or disagreements hardly have the persuasiveness to convince me that the submissions didn't amount to direct admissions (and please, this isn't a call for more arguments to the contrary), and seemingly very specifically framed, requested and delivered admissions at that - however garnished for ICA and public consumption.

My references to "impressions" weren't about the specifics of the case (And certainly not to do with some FIA promoted perceptions of the "depth" of McLaren's "knowledge" alone; honestly what do you take me for?), but the larger framework. Actions lack motives, apparent friend and foe do not act consistently or according to their apparent self-interest. There are gaps in the logic of events that text messages and dossiers in themselves are ill suited to fill or explain. What lies beneath doesn't take away from the simple implications of the actions that have already surfaced, though. Nor does it take away from the reactions and attitudes by figures of authority to the revealing and towards the revealers of and/or participants to those very actions.

I can hardly be optimistic about the chances of finding out more if this boils down to the byzantine squabble between Stepney and his erstwhile team - and nothing else. A miscarriage in the implementation of the sporting code? Smoking gun? If only things were as clean cut as for those phrases to mean something. The perp, the law, the justice. You argue as if I need convincing. You argue as if I have a set view on the FIA, Ferrari, McLaren or any one person. Let me put it this way; one can follow the smell and arrive at unimaginable piles, again and again. What I tried to do was to follow the things that didn't look wrong; things that didn't "smell". Pretty much the only undeniable thing that came out of this latest twist was that the FIA can't sanction Stepney according to their sporting code. Period.

The whole exercise, though, was quite useful in finding out about F1 in general and that's an experience that was actually pretty positive. I learned about the nature of justice and governance in motorsport. I learned about respecting the championship as well, but am inclined to give the debacle that inspired all this a rest for a while. Many things may yet haunt F1 with the "spy story" and I'm worried about its ramifications still. But I don't think that will be on the top of my mind at the sound of the first V8 firing after the Winter break.

[Rob W]

Like Rob, I agree but what data? The comms between them merely suggest there was contact between Coughlan and Stepney. Assuming this was relevant, there is nothing in there to suggest what passed between them.

True, unless they've not told us. (And this is an important point for my next comment)

Sorry but I still disagree. The FIA did not prove Mclaren had/used documents but that everything they heard suggests they MAY have

I was including Coulghan's possession of them in the McLaren unbrella. It's pretty well established he viewed them in his time as a McLaren employee so McLaren did in effect get a chance to make use of them either with or without the wider team's knowledge. That isn't the issue though, the issue is that the source of the 780 pages hasn't been established. Stepney still denies it was him. And, as far as I can remember, Coulghan hasn't come out and said outright "Stepney couriered the disc(s) to me", nor have Ferrari shown (that I know) that Stepney had access and ability to dump a massive pile of info onto a CD/DVD without there have being an obvious trail left.

I think Ferrari expect everyone to simply follow/agree with their claims, but (as I mentioned with the Renault IT check-up) they haven't come out with any claim saying "our IT investigations show he accessed the files...made temp copies.." etc. They've said nothing.

I guess it may because they're getting a sledgehammer case together for court or perhaps they don't have any smoking gun other than Coulghan being caught with their documents - which actually means nothing unless Stepney can be linked to it.

Well, the FIA statement did come across as very meek and even sheepish compared to the earlier language.

Exactly. I cannot see why they can't simply say "no team can employ Stepney for a period of ten years". There is absolutely no rule preventing them doing this.. again, this leads me to think they've gone soft in some sort of lets just let this slide deal with Stepney and Ferrari to prevent some sifty details coming to light and having this issue dominate the media this season.

The FIA rule other aspects of F1 with an iron fist but are suddenly now pansies? Something is amiss. Max has even been silent when he was the biggest advocate of dishing out major punishments and threats of exclusion only months ago.

R

[Rob W]

I disagree. Any lawyer (or competent advisor) would tell him to either shut up about it to the media until the case was over..

I'm having trouble getting my layman's head around this. Shouldn't Stepney have moved promptly to state this if he indeed has fundamental disagreements

The risk of making public statements before a court case is they can be used against you in court. If something you say publicly is proven to be a lie in court, then the court will assume you are lying about almost anything - which makes it harder to defend yourself or have any credibility later. Making public statements can however be useful if you are on firm ground with regards to your claim, and it can send notice to other parties that you're confident enough, if backed into a corner, to get into things they really don't want everyone to know about them. Perhaps about their internal dealings or rule-breaking technical developments.

I assume, since Stepney had access to plans, he also has knowledge of (and perhaps copies) any devices they've used over the years which 'bend' the rules - which could be very embarrassing for Ferrari and the FIA if they made it into the open. It could paint the team as long-term cheats (seriously bad PR, not to mention the problems it would cause with other teams), and the FIA as incompetent managers of the sport (or, worse, complicit/lenient to Ferrari's cause).

This is why I have the view that Stepney has something Ferrari and the FIA don't want everyone to know - and which he can prove or at least frame in such a way to really cause more problems (PR or legal)

R

[NickT]

I do believe that there are still some major karmic comeuppances on their way; such disregard was shown for F1, its general interest and the championship itself that the convulsions will catch up with people, or if the damage has been too great, F1 will indeed bring down many with itself. Forks in the road, choices to be made.

There was obviously a case for McLaren to answer for and it ran deeper than initially thought and they were correctly exposed, but I still feel they were doing nothing more than has happened in any number of F1 teams in the past. Without going into the ins and outs of every detail of who was right and who was wrong, my feeling is that there were a lot of people who took this oportunity to settle old scores in a way that left a very bitter taste in my mouth.

I find Ferrari's 'Holier Than Thou' stance, their close relationship with the FIA and FOM and the leaked information to the Italian press rather unsettling and a little hypocritical. It also seems to me the way Stepney's character has been systematically been brought into question with little or no details and obviously conflicting accounts from both Ferrari and now the FIA, is rather worrying as he seems to have had little oportunity to formally present his side of the story. I am still intrigued about his claim that the flow of information was in both directions.

Max Mosley has taken a little too much personal delight at Ron Dennis' plight and has taken the oportunity to publicly humiliate him on a number of occasions. I shall not go into my personal feelings about Max Mosley and his adoption of some the traits that his father stood for, but like Checkered I believe that Karma will eventually have a hand and the truth will come out. I just hope its sooner rather than later and that the press are not intimidated into diluting their response and depth of questioning.

But for now I can't wait for the season to start so that we have something more interesting to discuss and we can put this one away for a while.

[donskar]

Is it just me, or is this thread beginning to sound like a Kafka novel?

Thank God the racing is about to begin.

(Is there a symbol for "Biting My Tongue So Hard I May Need Sutures"?

BMTSHIMNS