The transcripts of both WMSC meetings that dealt with McLaren have been published and, predictably, most people are finding the minor revelations they contain and concentrating on those. So yes, it appears that Ron Dennis and Fernando Alonso are not the best of friends at the moment. And yes, it was Ron who informed Mosley about the drivers' emails initially, but it was Bernie who notified him of their existence after Alonso's manager had assured Ron that there were no emails.
Ron Dennis
Few, apart from Grand Prix dot com, are seeing beyond these snippets of gossip to the larger picture. What has happened amounts to a travesty, a legal fudge of monumental proportions that is self evident from the transcripts. It is quite clear that the WMSC wanted to have its cake and eat it.
Right at the beginning of the first meeting, Max Mosley had this to say: "I would also add that this is not a Court of Law, still less is it a criminal court." Good point, Max, let's keep this thing strictly to the remit of the committee - the sporting code.
The problem is that the committee then happily sally forth into legal and criminal matters that are none of their concern. Theirs was not to establish whether McLaren had gained access to the Ferrari documents and used them; their brief was only to establish whether F1 had been brought into disrepute and, if so, whether McLaren was responsible. This was never addressed, it being assumed that, if McLaren were guilty of industrial espionage, the disrepute would naturally follow.
Apart from the fact that the committee had no business deciding on a matter already schduled for the properly constituted courts to rule upon, it does not automatically follow that the inevitable consequence of a guilty verdict is a slur on the image of F1. Far more likely, in fact, is that it would bring McLaren into disrepute.
Having ventured into the arena of legal prosecution, the committee then proceeds to conduct itself as anything other than a court of law, accepting inference over sworn statements, untested evidence that was adequately explained by witnesses and preferring the opinion of one side of the argument over that of the other. The whole transcript is an excellent example of why we have a legal profession and allow professionals to sift and test evidence before it is submitted to trial. Inference and supposition have no place in deciding the truth of any matter; what seems likely often turns out to be wrong and the unlikely shown to be the truth.
Who cares whether Max feels it unlikely that Coughlan communicated only with de la Rosa regarding the documents? It does not matter whether the entire world are of that opinion - until it can be proved that communication went beyond that, no opinion is of any concern to the truth. You cannot convict on the grounds that something is unlikely in your opinion.
Yet this is the sum total of the FIA's new evidence - supposition and inference. Not even a committee ruling on a matter of the sporting code can justify a guilty verdict on such grounds, let alone a court of law.
To then impose a penalty out of all proportion to the alleged offence is to stray once more beyond the stated limits of the WMSC's remit. It may be that the committee will justify its actions by saying that they must penalize an offence against the code but they must recognize that McLaren do not operate only in the sport. They may exclude from their competition but they may not impose a financial penalty that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of people in the real world.
The whole thing is a fudge. When it suits the committee, they are not a court of law, when they want to behave as a court, they happily stray into the area of civil and criminal litigation. What the transcripts reveal is not just an unhappy relationship between a team owner and his driver, but the inadequacy of FIA structures to administer a sport in the modern world. The governing body needs complete re-organization to prevent one man having the power to rule over the sport as Max Mosley has done for far too long.
It will happen. Now that the manufacturers are the dominant force within F1, the situation cannot continue in its present form. We are about to see a power struggle that will end in an entirely new format for the governance of the sport. It cannot come too early, in my opinion.
At times, I have felt alone in my views on this issue as others have bowed to the apparent force of a few dubious emails. So let me end with a quote from the transcript, the words of a man who knows the law and how it should be applied, Ian Mill, the attorney for McLaren's defense:
"Tell Charlie Whiting to go into McLaren to go into the organisation and not return until, having checked it from top to bottom, he is satisfied that no use has occurred. That has not happened; I don’t know why.
"I do, however, know that if you convict us today without the FIA having done that, that will be the grossest misjustice in my professional experience."
Ron Dennis
Few, apart from Grand Prix dot com, are seeing beyond these snippets of gossip to the larger picture. What has happened amounts to a travesty, a legal fudge of monumental proportions that is self evident from the transcripts. It is quite clear that the WMSC wanted to have its cake and eat it.
Right at the beginning of the first meeting, Max Mosley had this to say: "I would also add that this is not a Court of Law, still less is it a criminal court." Good point, Max, let's keep this thing strictly to the remit of the committee - the sporting code.
The problem is that the committee then happily sally forth into legal and criminal matters that are none of their concern. Theirs was not to establish whether McLaren had gained access to the Ferrari documents and used them; their brief was only to establish whether F1 had been brought into disrepute and, if so, whether McLaren was responsible. This was never addressed, it being assumed that, if McLaren were guilty of industrial espionage, the disrepute would naturally follow.
Apart from the fact that the committee had no business deciding on a matter already schduled for the properly constituted courts to rule upon, it does not automatically follow that the inevitable consequence of a guilty verdict is a slur on the image of F1. Far more likely, in fact, is that it would bring McLaren into disrepute.
Having ventured into the arena of legal prosecution, the committee then proceeds to conduct itself as anything other than a court of law, accepting inference over sworn statements, untested evidence that was adequately explained by witnesses and preferring the opinion of one side of the argument over that of the other. The whole transcript is an excellent example of why we have a legal profession and allow professionals to sift and test evidence before it is submitted to trial. Inference and supposition have no place in deciding the truth of any matter; what seems likely often turns out to be wrong and the unlikely shown to be the truth.
Who cares whether Max feels it unlikely that Coughlan communicated only with de la Rosa regarding the documents? It does not matter whether the entire world are of that opinion - until it can be proved that communication went beyond that, no opinion is of any concern to the truth. You cannot convict on the grounds that something is unlikely in your opinion.
Yet this is the sum total of the FIA's new evidence - supposition and inference. Not even a committee ruling on a matter of the sporting code can justify a guilty verdict on such grounds, let alone a court of law.
To then impose a penalty out of all proportion to the alleged offence is to stray once more beyond the stated limits of the WMSC's remit. It may be that the committee will justify its actions by saying that they must penalize an offence against the code but they must recognize that McLaren do not operate only in the sport. They may exclude from their competition but they may not impose a financial penalty that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of people in the real world.
The whole thing is a fudge. When it suits the committee, they are not a court of law, when they want to behave as a court, they happily stray into the area of civil and criminal litigation. What the transcripts reveal is not just an unhappy relationship between a team owner and his driver, but the inadequacy of FIA structures to administer a sport in the modern world. The governing body needs complete re-organization to prevent one man having the power to rule over the sport as Max Mosley has done for far too long.
It will happen. Now that the manufacturers are the dominant force within F1, the situation cannot continue in its present form. We are about to see a power struggle that will end in an entirely new format for the governance of the sport. It cannot come too early, in my opinion.
At times, I have felt alone in my views on this issue as others have bowed to the apparent force of a few dubious emails. So let me end with a quote from the transcript, the words of a man who knows the law and how it should be applied, Ian Mill, the attorney for McLaren's defense:
"Tell Charlie Whiting to go into McLaren to go into the organisation and not return until, having checked it from top to bottom, he is satisfied that no use has occurred. That has not happened; I don’t know why.
"I do, however, know that if you convict us today without the FIA having done that, that will be the grossest misjustice in my professional experience."