Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: Clap clap clap

Esistono ancora uomini con le palle e la spina dorsale.
Ron Dennis è uno di questi.
Io sto con Ron Dennis, a voi la possibilità di scegliere il vostro campo.
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
-- 
Magic
la calunnia è un venticello
spesso spir da Maranello 

 Io sto con Ron Dennis, a voi la possibilità di scegliere il vostro campo.
Mr Dennis,
one word, please. Why do you not offer a copy of your current car design 
to Ferrari as a goodwill jesture? Of course Ferrari will swear not to use 
it to take any advantage.
I fatti sono chiari: McLaren ha fatto la pipì fuori dal vasino, la FIA ha 
stabilito che la McLaren è colpevole. La stessa FIA ha comunque deciso, 
per il momento, di graziare la McLaren.
Far silenzio a volte è decisamente più signorile degli starnazzi che 
arrivano a squarcia gola da Woking.
ivan
-- 
By 1977 or so, PLATO was featuring real-time multiplayer dungeon games,
not to mention real-time spacewar, IM, chat, email, netnews, and a host of
other things we now take for granted. All this on high-resolution plasma
panel terminals connected at 1200 baud to twin Cyber 6600 supercomputer.
Now you understand why I was kicked out of Cornell for a year; PLATO was
crack for computer nerds. (Robert Woodhead, co-creator of Wizardry)

Technical Department for their opinion.
Ma come? Non me l'ero sognata io questa ed era solo un "boato" non
verificato/verificabile? E sticazzi se lo avevano detto in un
notiziario? 
Saluti
Redbird

 arrivano a squarcia gola da Woking.
veramente Ron Donnis è la prima volta che parla (per rimettere le cose
nelle dovute proporzioni) a differenza dalla campagna a squarciagola e
infamante contro il WSMC e la Mclaren (quindi a rischio di 151c) fin'ora
effettuata dal tandem Macaluso/Ferrari. Hai ragione: Far silenzio a volte
è decisamente più signorile degli starnazzi... La campagna mediatica è
comunquee riuscita a far riaprire il caso, vedremo se andrà a favore della
Ferrari oppure no. D'altronde se non si riesce a vincere in pista,
nonostante si abbia a disposizione la monoposto migliore, si può sempre
cercare di vincere con ogni mezzo fuori dalla pista, no?
Tutto IMHO.
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 cercare di vincere con ogni mezzo fuori dalla pista, no?
Direi che le vetture sono più o meno alla pari, la prevalenza della
Ferrari mi sembra in generale leggera. Insomma, la McLaren non è una
Spyker, e nemmeno una BMW, con tutto il rispetto per la terza forza del
mondiale.
-- 
Vinci

 Tutto IMHO.
Ma attenersi ai fatti rimane un optional.


 pure i giornali inglesi!
Cioè 1 su 10 .... :-)

 notiziario?
Nel momento in cui l'hai riportata tu era una delle millemila voci (leggi 
boatos) messe in giro da qualcuno in Italia (chissà chi).
Nel momento in cui qualcuno ha le palle di mettere nome e cognome sotto 
quello che dichiara (e Ron Dennis le ha avute) separa il grano dal loglio, 
ed i boatos dalla verità.
Quindi ringrazia Ron Dennis, come lo ringrazio io.


 stesso.
Ecco un altro che gioca con le parole.
Dai su, non potrai mai arrivare a livello di Ron Dennis, ma se ti sforzi una 
timida discesa del testicolo dovrebbe verificarsi anche per te...
-- 
Magic
la calunnia č un venticello
spesso spir da Maranello 

Quindi ringrazia Ron Dennis, come lo ringrazio io.
Nel  momento in cui l'ho riportata io era una dichiarazione di
Coughlan, ma la calura estiva e il pregiudizio evidentemente ti ha
impedito di approfondire. E' ora che Ron Dennis mostra le stigmate
tutti i discepoli passano inevitabilmente in secondo piano....
Saluti
Redbird

Ecco un altro che gioca con le parole.
Certo che detto da uno che posta versetti, che li mette nella sign,
che si fregia di citazioni latine e che abilmente scompare quando gli
si pongono domande scomode non può che essere un complimento. 
Saluti
Redbird

 Certo che detto da uno che posta versetti
Maddai, capiscilo. E' un poveraccio. Di più non può fare.


 ivan
uno che si vanta di andare in giro a fare restauri di chiese con un 
architetta, omettendo che lo fa perchè noi ingegneri non abbiamo la 
facoltà di farlo..
(ingegnere che non si vanta)
ma non si puo sentire dire che ROn Dennis ha le palle, quando sta solo 
buttando merda sulal f1

 buttando merda sulal f1
Eddai, anche lui deve pararsi il deretano: ricordati che ha ancora azioni 
dell'azienda e le deve valorizzare al massimo, altrimenti le banche non 
gli prestano mica i dindini!


 facoltà di farlo..
la questione è complessa e lunga, in ogni caso non attinente.
In ogni caso tra le persone che riferiscono a me e che a me devono rendere 
conto ci sono sia ingegneri che architetti (e non solo architette).
-- 
Magic
la calunnia è un venticello
spesso spir da Maranello