Max Mosley's suggested cancellation of the February meeting regarding the McLaren 2008 car has now been accepted by the FIA. Presumably, this means that the unsavory saga of the spy cases is over and it can recede into history, only to be resurrected when F1 fans need something to argue about during long, uneventful off seasons of the future.
So great is the relief at this conclusion that it may seem curmudgeonly to say anything more - yet the Renault transcript, released only yesterday, deserves some form of comment, surely. And there is evidence that the FIA learns from its mistakes; the transcript is in PDF format once again but is created by the use of scanned images so that no copying and pasting is possible. The redacted parts stay redacted! I could mumble something about OCR (optical character recognition) software but that still won't let you see the secret bits and, besides, let's not confuse the powers that be with too much basic IT technology at a time.
Response to the document has been muted as yet, although you can bet that plenty of F1 journalists are laboriously copying out relevant exerpts through their keyboards. I particularly like the innuendo present in Formula1Sport's report on the matter, however:
The transcript also highlighted the role FIA president Max Mosley played in the hearing, such as when he stopped McLaren lawyer Ian Mill from asking Mackereth if one of the drawings could have been used for the design of Renault’s 2008 car.
"If we become engaged in discussion as to whether a schematic drawing can inform about the detailed design of a pump, we are not using the limited time we have very constructively," Mosley told Mill.
It is hardly necessary for me to add that this could be a very important point in ascertaining any use of the information by Renault. But, no matter, the decision has been made and Renault remain in the sport, much to everyone's relief, I'm sure. There is only the outstanding business of the FIA's libel case against Martin Brundle to keep us amused until the beginning of the 2008 season therefore.
Which brings to mind the phrase "witch hunt", interestingly enough a matter that was debated at various junctures during the McLaren hearing, thereby foreshadowing the decision to press charges against Mr Brundle. I have promised myself not to bore my readers with a long comparative dissection of both hearings but let me instead just quote from them both. Just to see whether we get a "feeling" that there is some difference in the way the cases were handled.
"The real issue is as follows: were the 780 pages disseminated into McLaren, to any degree?" - Max Mosley during the second WMSC McLaren hearing
"It emerges from the written and oral submissions made (and it is admitted by Renault) that different Renault engineers received and considered four confidential McLaren drawings from Mackereth. In this regard Renault admits a breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code." - WMSC Renault decision
Apparently "real issues" can be viewed and penalized in various ways, according to circumstances...
It has also been suggested that McLaren were so severely punished because they did not reveal from the first the extent to which Ferrari information had penetrated their company. Renault are repeatedly said to have been transparent from the word go - except that this paragraph appears in the WMSC decision:
"The findings of Renault's preliminary inquiry were that no dissemination beyond Mackereth had occurred. This had been Mackereth's evidence at the time. The various internal and external investigations, very much assisted by McLaren, demonstrate that this initial position was incorrect. Renault accepts this and its various witness statements produced after these initial findings have clarified the position."
The similarities to the McLaren case multiply almost to the point of disbelief.
I will let it rest there; let me just mention that a comparison of the two transcripts is exceptionally interesting if you have any interest in the matter at all. Echoes, echoes everywhere...
So great is the relief at this conclusion that it may seem curmudgeonly to say anything more - yet the Renault transcript, released only yesterday, deserves some form of comment, surely. And there is evidence that the FIA learns from its mistakes; the transcript is in PDF format once again but is created by the use of scanned images so that no copying and pasting is possible. The redacted parts stay redacted! I could mumble something about OCR (optical character recognition) software but that still won't let you see the secret bits and, besides, let's not confuse the powers that be with too much basic IT technology at a time.
Response to the document has been muted as yet, although you can bet that plenty of F1 journalists are laboriously copying out relevant exerpts through their keyboards. I particularly like the innuendo present in Formula1Sport's report on the matter, however:
The transcript also highlighted the role FIA president Max Mosley played in the hearing, such as when he stopped McLaren lawyer Ian Mill from asking Mackereth if one of the drawings could have been used for the design of Renault’s 2008 car.
"If we become engaged in discussion as to whether a schematic drawing can inform about the detailed design of a pump, we are not using the limited time we have very constructively," Mosley told Mill.
It is hardly necessary for me to add that this could be a very important point in ascertaining any use of the information by Renault. But, no matter, the decision has been made and Renault remain in the sport, much to everyone's relief, I'm sure. There is only the outstanding business of the FIA's libel case against Martin Brundle to keep us amused until the beginning of the 2008 season therefore.
Which brings to mind the phrase "witch hunt", interestingly enough a matter that was debated at various junctures during the McLaren hearing, thereby foreshadowing the decision to press charges against Mr Brundle. I have promised myself not to bore my readers with a long comparative dissection of both hearings but let me instead just quote from them both. Just to see whether we get a "feeling" that there is some difference in the way the cases were handled.
"The real issue is as follows: were the 780 pages disseminated into McLaren, to any degree?" - Max Mosley during the second WMSC McLaren hearing
"It emerges from the written and oral submissions made (and it is admitted by Renault) that different Renault engineers received and considered four confidential McLaren drawings from Mackereth. In this regard Renault admits a breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code." - WMSC Renault decision
Apparently "real issues" can be viewed and penalized in various ways, according to circumstances...
It has also been suggested that McLaren were so severely punished because they did not reveal from the first the extent to which Ferrari information had penetrated their company. Renault are repeatedly said to have been transparent from the word go - except that this paragraph appears in the WMSC decision:
"The findings of Renault's preliminary inquiry were that no dissemination beyond Mackereth had occurred. This had been Mackereth's evidence at the time. The various internal and external investigations, very much assisted by McLaren, demonstrate that this initial position was incorrect. Renault accepts this and its various witness statements produced after these initial findings have clarified the position."
The similarities to the McLaren case multiply almost to the point of disbelief.
I will let it rest there; let me just mention that a comparison of the two transcripts is exceptionally interesting if you have any interest in the matter at all. Echoes, echoes everywhere...