Thanks for the link tifosiron. If the quotes are true, Ron Dennis comes out looking honorable. As soon as he heard from Alonso that something was amiss RD called Max. I really try to cheer for my favorite drivers and not hate other drivers, but this article really makes Alonso look bad.
I just read the article and Alonso is a real a@@hole - he needs to go back to his buddy Falvio. Carol
That's funny since it was Hamilton and his slime bag of a dad who screwed RD in Hungary. Alonso was merely a pawn in that staged drama.
Andreas, Can you elaborate on that? Not saying I dont believe you, just that I have heard this in a few places but I dont know what the story is. Can you tell the story or provide a link? Thanks!
Big one. BusinessF1 analyzed the events of what went down in Hungary and made it its cover story for their September issue. They looked at all the various things that happened and the various sources and pieced it together. In essence Lewis and his dad deliberately destabilized the team to give them an equal position in the contract negotiations for LH. They chose Budapest because it was before the 3 week break and would leave things in the open. They scored an additional bonus because McLaren's PR folks were absent on vacation and the managers were left holding the bag. Here the list of 4 hits LH did against his team: 1. Disobeys team orders to switch positions at the beginning of Q3 2. Deliberately parked behind Alonso to show the world who the bad guy is, at that point he knew that he wouldn't have time for a quick lap anymore anyway because the pit was full. Alonso's waiting game was payback, but not needed anymore. 3. Verbal attack on RD despite knowing that he caused the whole thing by not switching positions. It shocked the hell out of RD. 4. Barges into the press conference against the orders of RD and attacks Alonso and the team. At that point Whitemarsh had to break it off. The list of Anthony Hamilton's tasks: 1. Leaked the encrypted conversations between LH and RD to the press. 2. Lobbied the FIA stewards to take action against Alonso, which they did. 3. Called his son to tell him when RD left the press conference so LH could join and disgrace the team there.
1st of all, Alonso is all the things they say he is...and HE POINTS AT EVERYBODY SAYING CHEATERS...remember the test ban Ferrari didnt agreed to, cause they were the only top team on Bridgestones in 2005? ... even more funnny if you think Hamilton was kept "in the dark"...the test team was using every bit of info, they even planned on making the same parts to test them...they did every little thing we especulated about...and the obvious developments took them a step forward... A VERY BIG STEP FORWARD, if you understand why they need the floor to flex under load, why they use a different mixture of gases to fill and keep tires coooler, breaks that create less heat...I mean is ridiculous! the future and the rest of the decade was easily displayed there...with ALL THAT you know your opponents next move...just like boxing with a mirror 1 sec ahead in time...no matter what you do, he´ll know better... IMO they deserved to go for this year and the next...drivers should be gone for this year, and may return the next, seeking that the info they gathered will be common knowledge by the time they get back and there is no advantage over what they know...or at least points docked to even them with Ferraris drivers. AH! and oh well, Ron is just a great actor...I dont believe a thing he says...he HAD TO KNOW that all this was happening in HIS team...he just saw it way too public after the first hearing and tried to be looked as cooperative...and then what? look surprised? the devil in disguise.
I think we also have to remember that this is just one viewpoint. If its only out in one paper or mag then I think we have to take it with a grain of salt. For me to believe something like that I have to hear it from more than 1 source. Hey, it may be true but who knows for sure?
I disagree. BusinessF1 is IMHO the most serious and in depth magazine I have ever seen. They are trully not biased, they disect any team, driver, situation. What I really like is their footwork: They take the time to analyze in hindsight and put the pieces of the puzzle together. Unlike regular media who just jump to the next story. The reason they are unique is, because they're not really targeting the F1 fans, but the business people. That is reflected in their style, their thoroughness and their price. A 12 issues subscription costs $ 450.
What bothers me the most is that pretty much FIA are saying that they knew that the drivers should have been also penalized and that they "probably" didn't do enough(per Mosley) and still did what they did just to save their revenue from the rest of the season. I don't get it. The season is trashed no matter what. No matter Who wins it is a joke (except if Ferrari pull a miracle ) People would ratter forget about this season either way. They could at least save their own dignity and do the right thing. And this slimeball Alonshole should be thrown out of F1. I don't care how talented he is . I am pretty sure that Ben Johnson was a great athlete even without doping and pretty sure a lot nicer guy off the track.
Very interesting. Do you think LH is more manipulative than Alonso (and other drivers)? I do not recall #4 above. Can you post a link to an article with the story?
I don't think LH is more manipulative than other stars in F1 (e.g. Prost, Schumacher etc). But the combination with his father is a novelty. The story is in the magazine BusinessF1 pages 884-888, titled "The end of innocence". Actually the part about the press conference was reported in other media as well. At the time I read a story in "motorsport aktuell" which mentioned, that Haug was needed to keep the drivers separated and that it was a PR fiasco. Alonso was touting the teams/RD's line and LH basically dismantles everything in front of the press.
Wow. How sad. Ron Dennis' karma is catching up to him. I agree with Andreas, BusF1 is one of the more credible sources.
Yes. About time. I hope Mercedes fires him. On that note: Blick's Benoit reported an interesting rumor: Allegedly the verdict would have been a lot softer had RD resigned before last Thursday. Another nail in his Mercedes coffin. I can't wait for their analysis of the FIA verdict etc. So far their position regarding the espionage has been very much against what Coughland and Stepney were doing. BusinessF1 does not regard their actions as "par for the course" but an extraordinary case and therefore deserves the attention/punishment etc it got. OTOH they also think Mosley is a complete idiot (they use more elegant words than I do though).
I maybe the only one here, but I have a lot of sympathy for RD. As I see it all teams try to take advantage of every loophole in the rules and gather intelligence on other teams short of out right stealing data or receiving stolen data. In this case it seems that RD really did not know the extent to which his people were working with the Ferrari trader.
The specific link to the transcript is at: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62552 It is a very interesting and quite lengthy read. I saved it into MS Word and it is 72 pages long in a small typface - Verdana at 7.5 points. In a more normal size and typface it would likely run over 125 or more pages. From reading the transcript, it appears that there may be much more to come. Interesting that part of McLaren's defense (of which the full particulars we do not have - but they are referred to in passing in the transcript) was to try to raise complaints or shift blame to other teams, such as Renault, and McLaren's attempt to try to show that Ferrari needed to show that McLaren somehow benefitted from whatever confidential Ferrari information that McLaren had received (which, of course, McLaren claims it never received). Here is an excerpt of a portion of the argument of one of Ferrari's attorneys, Nigel Tozzi, on those issues, and on McLaren's late submission of documents, McLaren's defence strategy, and related matters regarding the burden of proof with respect to what needed to be shown (and an interruption/comment from Max Mosley): ________________ Nigel TOZZI: We started receiving McLaren's documents at 4 PM yesterday; we did not receive the detailed submissions until after 6 PM. We are thus unable to respond in detail. We are very conscious of the time constraints for today's hearing. It is important to understand, then, that any failure to deal with a point in McLaren's submissions as an acceptance of its truth, but simply a reflection of the time available to us. The McLaren submissions and witness statements a number of completely unfounded criticisms of Ferrari, presumably in an attempt to deflect attention from their own conduct. We urge you to bear in mind that we are here to consider McLaren's conduct, not that of Ferrari, and indeed not that of Renault, which also seemed to bear the brunt of some criticism from McLaren. We are here to consider McLaren's conduct. That is the ambit of this enquiry. The third point is to remind you of the language of Article 151c itself, and the fact that you have already found McLaren, and rightly so, to be in breach of that Article. Article 151c makes it an offence where there is any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the outcome of a competition, or to the interest of motor sport in general. There is no requirement in Article 151 that it must be shown that a party needs to have gained advantage or that documents have actually been used, as in this case. If I may provide analogies from another sporting arenas. In athletics, if a runner takes a banned substance, that runner is disqualified; it is not necessary to show that the runner has gained an advantage. It is enough that he has taken a banned substance. If a football team fields a player who has been banned, it will be disqualified or lose points. It is not necessary to show that the said player had any influence on the outcome of the match. Max MOSLEY: Mr Tozzi, may I interrupt you for one second. I do not wish to keep interrupting. The point you are making is fundamental to motor sport. Someone can be 1mm over with their wing, or half a kilo over or under with their weight, and thereby be disqualified. We have exactly that principle. ________________
But Ron...you said it was a hack magazine when they printed that behind-the-scenes story about Schumacher's retirement?
Interesting. I haven't got to that one yet: As a subscriber they sent me all the back issues as well. Got a long way to go to catch up. I'll keep an eye out for that one.
Yet Ferrari was not penalized for their barge boards? Were they not too big per the regulations? I get the feeling that the FIA makes up rules as they go along.
I think that is fact. But to me far worse than the FIA are its local stewards at the GPs that make up their own rulings and penalties (Schumacher 06 in Monaco, Alonso in Monza 06 etc). No consistency whatsoever.
you are WRONG. Barge Boards were meassured IMPROPERLY. ...although it backs the teory of each GP having its own rules...cero consistency. Image Unavailable, Please Login
100% correct. Penalties are determined by whatever team is in disfavor or favor at any point in time.
It really works that way, doesn't it? Some decisions go clearly pro Ferrari and others against. Or pro and against McLaren or Renault. Makes me wonder who is behind all that. Could it be some small old guy?
