There is a certain irony in the news that the FIA has called Renault to answer charges of being in possession of McLaren intellectual property. Flavio Briatore was very loud in his condemnation of McLaren immediately prior to the WMSC hearing and it now seems that this might rebound on him and his team. The similarities in the two cases are almost uncanny, both companies insisting that they are being "completely transparent" to investigation of the charges and the FIA concentrating on the matter of possession of information.
Carlos Ghosn, Renault CEO
It is interesting that the FIA has chosen to take the Renault case so seriously. One could argue that they have no option in view of the widely-held opinion that they have been motivated this year purely by a desire to "get McLaren"; if they were to allow Renault to escape without investigation, it would be fairly obvious that this was indeed their intent. The extent to which they are prepared to sacrifice Renault on the altar of appearing even-handed remains to be seen, however.
I have no doubt that the FIA will maintain that this is a very different case from McLaren's alleged espionage and, to some extent, this is true. What has happened in Renault's case is an extension of the usual spread of information that occurs inevitably whenever an employee moves from one team to another. The difference is that this particular employee apparently did not trust his memory sufficiently to rely on his brain for the export of data; he brought it on CDs instead.
That is where the Ferrari documents ended up too - on CDs. So the only real difference in the two cases is the matter of employment; no employees switched sides in the McLaren example whereas a migrating employee became the method of transfer in the other. If we are going to maintain that the two cases are totally different, we must be saying that it is the method of transfer of information that matters, not the mere possession of it.
There seems to be little doubt that the CDs were brought into Renault by their new employee - some details of the information they contained were listed in the FIA's summons to the company. Renault is saying that the information was not used, just as McLaren maintained, but a precedent has now been set by the FIA: if an employee was or employees were in possession of information, it "must have been used" in the FIA's opinion.
Now we see how the ramifications of the WMSC verdict can destroy the very sport the FIA are supposed to be promoting and supporting. By venturing into legal territory, they have created a situation where teams can be penalized on suspicion alone. And it leaves the FIA in a very unenviable position indeed.
To give the impression of being fair, they must deal with the matter; but, if they apply the same rules and penalties as they did in McLaren's case, the likelihood is that Renault would withdraw their team from the sport. Carlos Ghosn, the Renault principal, has already said that the company is involved in F1 only while it proves a valuable promotional tool. A hefty fine and charge of bringing the sport into disrepute would swing the balance away from there being any value at all in Renault's continued participation.
Whether the FIA likes it or not, the theft of intellectual property is a legal matter and for the courts to judge, not the FIA. Max Mosley has attempted to get around this by saying that the so-called industrial espionage by McLaren brought the sport into disrepute and, strictly speaking, this is the charge that McLaren were found guilty of. But how can an alleged offense cause any disrepute before it is proven? The WMSC were forced to venture into legal territory by first ruling that industrial espionage did take place (and their verdict is suspect in that it was based entirely upon Max Mosley's opinion) and only then being able to say that this brought the sport into disrepute.
The Renault case is only the first of the damaging results of the WMSC's rash pre-emption of the pending court cases. Should the courts decide otherwise than opined by the WMSC, the FIA's penalization of McLaren and perhaps Renault will be revealed for what it was: the verdict and sentence of a kangaroo court. The FIA should not have become involved in such matters at all - it is not its job to decide upon matters of civil law.
The purpose of the FIA is to govern the sport; it has rules and regulations that, if contravened by a team, it can decide how to penalize. It was their decision to charge McLaren with bringing the sport into disrepute - but any such disrepute can only stem from McLaren being found guilty of industrial espionage in a court of law. Only at that point do the FIA become justified in penalizing for a disrepute charge.
It is quite clear that the FIA jumped the gun in their eagerness to punish McLaren for suspected espionage. Their attitude should have been that protection of data is a matter for each team to sort out. If information escapes, then the team needs to attend to its security and take the matter to the law courts, if they feel they have a case. This is, in fact, how the FIA reacted to the conviction of ex-Ferrari employees supplying Toyota with information and it is tempting to believe that the only reason they reacted so differently in the McLaren case is that there was a desire within the governing body to lash out at McLaren.
And now the FIA begins to pay the piper. I can see no option for them but to let Renault get away with things very lightly; anything else runs the risk of causing the company to leave F1. For that, they will be criticized mercilessly and accusations of McLaren-bashing will be revitalized, but they will just have to brazen it out.
It really is time that there was spring-cleaning in the house of the FIA and that a more equitable way of governing the sport was devised.
Carlos Ghosn, Renault CEO
It is interesting that the FIA has chosen to take the Renault case so seriously. One could argue that they have no option in view of the widely-held opinion that they have been motivated this year purely by a desire to "get McLaren"; if they were to allow Renault to escape without investigation, it would be fairly obvious that this was indeed their intent. The extent to which they are prepared to sacrifice Renault on the altar of appearing even-handed remains to be seen, however.
I have no doubt that the FIA will maintain that this is a very different case from McLaren's alleged espionage and, to some extent, this is true. What has happened in Renault's case is an extension of the usual spread of information that occurs inevitably whenever an employee moves from one team to another. The difference is that this particular employee apparently did not trust his memory sufficiently to rely on his brain for the export of data; he brought it on CDs instead.
That is where the Ferrari documents ended up too - on CDs. So the only real difference in the two cases is the matter of employment; no employees switched sides in the McLaren example whereas a migrating employee became the method of transfer in the other. If we are going to maintain that the two cases are totally different, we must be saying that it is the method of transfer of information that matters, not the mere possession of it.
There seems to be little doubt that the CDs were brought into Renault by their new employee - some details of the information they contained were listed in the FIA's summons to the company. Renault is saying that the information was not used, just as McLaren maintained, but a precedent has now been set by the FIA: if an employee was or employees were in possession of information, it "must have been used" in the FIA's opinion.
Now we see how the ramifications of the WMSC verdict can destroy the very sport the FIA are supposed to be promoting and supporting. By venturing into legal territory, they have created a situation where teams can be penalized on suspicion alone. And it leaves the FIA in a very unenviable position indeed.
To give the impression of being fair, they must deal with the matter; but, if they apply the same rules and penalties as they did in McLaren's case, the likelihood is that Renault would withdraw their team from the sport. Carlos Ghosn, the Renault principal, has already said that the company is involved in F1 only while it proves a valuable promotional tool. A hefty fine and charge of bringing the sport into disrepute would swing the balance away from there being any value at all in Renault's continued participation.
Whether the FIA likes it or not, the theft of intellectual property is a legal matter and for the courts to judge, not the FIA. Max Mosley has attempted to get around this by saying that the so-called industrial espionage by McLaren brought the sport into disrepute and, strictly speaking, this is the charge that McLaren were found guilty of. But how can an alleged offense cause any disrepute before it is proven? The WMSC were forced to venture into legal territory by first ruling that industrial espionage did take place (and their verdict is suspect in that it was based entirely upon Max Mosley's opinion) and only then being able to say that this brought the sport into disrepute.
The Renault case is only the first of the damaging results of the WMSC's rash pre-emption of the pending court cases. Should the courts decide otherwise than opined by the WMSC, the FIA's penalization of McLaren and perhaps Renault will be revealed for what it was: the verdict and sentence of a kangaroo court. The FIA should not have become involved in such matters at all - it is not its job to decide upon matters of civil law.
The purpose of the FIA is to govern the sport; it has rules and regulations that, if contravened by a team, it can decide how to penalize. It was their decision to charge McLaren with bringing the sport into disrepute - but any such disrepute can only stem from McLaren being found guilty of industrial espionage in a court of law. Only at that point do the FIA become justified in penalizing for a disrepute charge.
It is quite clear that the FIA jumped the gun in their eagerness to punish McLaren for suspected espionage. Their attitude should have been that protection of data is a matter for each team to sort out. If information escapes, then the team needs to attend to its security and take the matter to the law courts, if they feel they have a case. This is, in fact, how the FIA reacted to the conviction of ex-Ferrari employees supplying Toyota with information and it is tempting to believe that the only reason they reacted so differently in the McLaren case is that there was a desire within the governing body to lash out at McLaren.
And now the FIA begins to pay the piper. I can see no option for them but to let Renault get away with things very lightly; anything else runs the risk of causing the company to leave F1. For that, they will be criticized mercilessly and accusations of McLaren-bashing will be revitalized, but they will just have to brazen it out.
It really is time that there was spring-cleaning in the house of the FIA and that a more equitable way of governing the sport was devised.