Bastava trascrivere da un file Pdf di acrobat reader a Word il testo contenuto nel dossier per leggere i contenuti coperti da una striscia nera, per rendere pubblico il dossier di Spy Story. Eccone il contenuto:

Paris, 13 September 2007 1

Extraordinary Meeting of

the World Motor Sport Council

I. Hearing

1. Preliminary Points

Max MOSLEY

At my request, Sebastian has gone to each of the two teams – McLaren and Ferrari – and explained

that, because the dossier arrived very late last night, the World Motor Sport Council needed to take

a bit more time to read it before we open the hearing. I am not sure that everyone has read it.

There is a great deal in it that may not be directly relevant, and it is not as bulky as it looks.

Nevertheless, I feel you should be given more time. If you wish to take this time to have a quiet

look at your dossier, this would be a good opportunity to do so.

President of the World Karting Federation

I wished to point out a possible error in the first dossier, page 134. Regarding the telephone

discussion, Jonathan Neale is the name that is listed for each of the witness responses on that page.

If I recall correctly, it was Paddy Lowe who stated all of this, not Jonathan Neale.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much; we will take that on board.

Are there any other points that people wish to raise on the dossiers?

[After 20 minutes time, Max Mosley asks whether there are questions or requests for additional

time. As none are put forward, the teams are called in.].

For clarity’s sake, we ask that any teams other than McLaren and Ferrari please sit at the end,

where they will be comfortable. Witnesses, other than the expert witnesses, will be asked to sit

outside, as we do not have room to seat them all. In any case, it is preferable that witnesses not be

present during the proceedings. Three seats have been provided for McLaren and three for Ferrari.

We are trying to accommodate everyone as best possible.

[It is ascertained that all of the witnesses other than expert witnesses are outside. Paddy Lowe

being deemed by Max Mosley a witness of fact in this circumstance, he is also asked to wait

outside.]

I apologise that it was rather difficult to accommodate all those requiring seating in this room.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 2

We sent out a note in an attempt to limit the amount of time spent in an actual hearing today,

particularly in view of the large quantity of documents being circulated. I hope that we will be able

to abide by that schedule.

We thought that the best way of proceeding was to allow to Ferrari to present its case, as we were

criticised last time for allegedly failing to allow Ferrari the proper opportunity to do so. Thus, after

preliminary matter, we will allow Ferrari to present its case for a maximum of 45 minutes.

McLaren will then have 1 hour and 30 minutes to present its position. It would be most efficient if

the actual submissions were very short so that more time could be dedicated to asking questions

and listening to witnesses. However, it is up to each party how it wishes to allot time for questions

and, perhaps, other people’s witnesses.

I should also say that it is our intention – because it has been suggested in the press that these

proceedings are less than fair or that we are in some way published – a full transcript of both

hearings, (26 July and 13 September) having first given the parties the opportunity to redact from

those transcripts anything that they feel is confidential, or for which they can give genuine reason

for not publishing them. It is in the interest of motor sport and Formula 1 that people can

understand what took place and form their own opinion as to what happened. We hope to circulate

a transcript within 24 hours, then leave you 48 hours to make whatever redactions are deemed

appropriate.

I should add that, if there is any question of imposing any sort of penalty at the close of the hearing,

we will invite the parties back to make submissions on that, particularly the affected party. This is

fundamental. We will also invite Lewis Hamilton’s counsel, should there be any decision that

might affect him, so that we can hear submissions on his behalf. That concludes the preliminary

points, on my part.

Ian MILL

I have two points.

The first is a matter that we did raise in our skeleton submissions: it concerns the Italian documents,

if I may refer to them as such, which you have received and which form part of the evidence

against us. You will have read in our submissions that we have concerns that those documents may

have obtained improperly. We have present, in the room, if deemed helpful and relevant, our

Italian lawyer, Professor Amodio, who can explain the issues to you. He has been responsible for

drafting the Italian proceedings which are in our dossier papers. It may be that this is all a

misunderstanding, but as the President wrote to us when we received these documents, he had

understood that the reason for their arrival, at the time of their arrival, was that Ferrari had to obtain

a court order to allow them to be disclosed. Please understand what these are: these are documents

from the confidential files of the police, in relation to the potential prosecution of Mr Coughlan and

Mr Stepney. If they are used today, they will be so for a purpose entirely unconnected from that.

Professor Amodio, who is a witness of fact for these purposes, states that he spoke to the

prosecutor. The prosecutor told him that Ferrari had indeed applied to him for permission, and that

he refused it. We have written to Ferrari for a copy of the court order, for it is entirely possible that

we have misunderstood the position or that the prosecutor had misremembered events. As I far as

we know, we have yet to receive a response from Ferrari on that. It is very important that, before

hearing Ferrari’s case, insofar as they are going to rely on those documents, that a substantive

response be given: if they have obtained a court order, they should assure us of that and, if they

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 3

have, preferably produce it. In that case, we can forget about this and move forward. Otherwise,

the World Motor Sport Council needs to understand that that there may be issues on which my

clients have to reserve their rights, insofar as they regard and are based upon documents improperly

obtained.

Max MOSLEY

In front of us is a list of 323 text messages and telephone calls – a combination of the two – over a

3.5 month period. The World Council’s only concern is whether that list is accurate and truthful.

We are not concerned with whether there are issues over how that is obtained. Unless there is

evidence that it is forged or inaccurate, we will take it on its face value. We do not enter a debate

about Italian law; we have neither the time nor the skills for that. We have a list, we will look at it

and you can make whatever points you wish to make about it.

Ian MILL

I understand that that is the position that the World Motor Sport Council has taken. It has to

understand that the fact that it is looking at the list, and being invited by Ferrari to draw inferences

from that list may create serious problems. However, if that is how the World Motor Sport Council

wishes to deal with this, then that is fine. You simply need to know that we reserve our rights with

regard to that.

Max MOSLEY

Absolutely; that is understood. What was your second point?

Ian MILL

The second was raised just now by Mr Dennis, who was concerned, upon coming into the room, a

gentleman whom he believes is or has been a director of Ferrari: Mr Piccinini. He was concerned

as to whether that gentleman intended to play any substantive part in the proceedings and have an

impingement on the result.

Max MOSLEY

You are quite right to make the point. He is indeed a director and was, many years ago, the Ferrari

Team Manager. He will not play a part in the proceedings and will not vote. However, as he is the

Deputy President of Motor Sport for the FIA, it seemed entirely appropriate that he should be here.

Ian MILL

That seems entirely appropriate. I had thought that would be the answer.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 4

Max MOSLEY

If you are ready, the floor is Ferrari’s.

2. Counsel Statements

Henry PETER

Mr President, Ferrari will be represented today by Nigel Tozzi, an English QC and myself.

Ferrari’s case has been presented in detail in a submission filed on Tuesday, with 64 documents.

Two of these documents are highly confidential and are thus only with the World Motor Sport

Council: the three exhibit to Mr Procogenta’s affidavit; as well as two binders containing the 780

pages of material founded at Mr Coughlan’s domicile. It is only by seeing and weighing it that one

fully realises what is in question.

Max MOSLEY

Might I interrupt you. We are happy to have these documents shown quickly to the members of the

World Council, but it is up to you to decide when that will happen.

Henry PETER

Thank you. As requested by the FIA, Ferrari also filed, before noon, a six-page skeleton in both

French and English. We assume that this has been read and the case will therefore be presented

quite briefly, at this stage.

I will do this and Nigel Tozzi will then carry on, developing some of our points.

Relying on the facts known at that time, on 26 July 2007, the World Motor Sport Council found

that McLaren had breached Article 151c of the International Sporting Code. The WMSC, however,

decided that evidence of any use of the material found in possession of McLaren was insufficient to

impose a penalty. The Council, however, reserved the right to invite McLaren back in front of it in

case new evidence emerged.

Since July 26th, new facts have indeed emerged. First, they show that McLaren has not told the

full story, thus the WC was misled when it issued its first decision. Secondly, new and impressive

evidence has now been collected, which shows that a substantial amount of additional confidential

Ferrari information penetrated McLaren at advanced levels and was used in various manners.

These facts results from documents collected by the FIA. We refer to the e-mails exchanged by

Alonso, De la Rosa, Coughlan, Lowe and Stepney and by Ferrari. I am referring here to reports

obtained – legally – by Ferrari, collected and prepared by the Italian police, with evidence that

hundreds of SMS –

Max MOSLEY

Can I interrupt you? We know all of this. We need to hear information that is not contained in the

documents, or hear the witnesses. There is very little new evidence and we are familiar with it.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 5

Henry PETER

Fine. I would like to recall that, if this illegal possession used by McLaren had not been discovered

by chance, McLaren would probably still be using it today. Furthermore, if the FIA had not written

to McLaren’s drivers, we would not be here today. In all of this process, McLaren never

contributed to discovering the truth, at least not spontaneously.

We believe that McLaren derived substantial advantage from the knowledge and use of the

material. We know that, with so little between McLaren and Ferrari, the slightest adjustments can

make a major difference in terms of results. In view of these facts and this new evidence, we trust

that the World Motor Sport Council will be able to make the appropriate decision today.

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.

Last time, the World Motor Council was motivated last time by the fact that all of the information

was reported to us to be in the hands of a rogue employee. We were told that none of the

information had reached anyone in McLaren. Under those circumstances, it seemed to us unfair to

impose the same sort of penalties as those that would have been imposed had .in McLaren. It was a

question of fairness, not a rigid application of the rule. The principle you are explaining is one that

we fully understand and follow. However, the particular circumstances on the 26th were that we did

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 6

not have sufficient evidence to rebut the assurance that none of the information has found its way

into McLaren.

The real issue is as follows: were the 780 pages disseminated into McLaren, to any degree?

Secondly, does the new evidence add anything in arriving at that answer?

Nigel TOZZI

I understand and will not belabour the point I was making. I understand the boundaries, but that

does not indicate that I accept that you are so prescribed.

The key facts for you to consider are, in light of the new evidence:

- The degree of contact which we now know to have taken place between Coughlan and

Stepney. I will not respond in any detail when my learned friend raised his objection to the

manner in which the information was used in the Italian prosecution. We say that objection

is extraordinary from a party that has come before this body on several occasions, claiming

a desire to be helpful, cooperative, and open. It is extraordinary that they are trying to

suppress that information’s being in front of you, even to the extent of taking materials from

proceedings in Italy and having that withdrawn.

- We completely reject the suggestion that we have, in any way, behaved improperly in using

that material. Our Italian lawyer, Mr Deluca, is here to provide counsel on that. It may be

taken to say that we have a complete answer to all of the points made by McLaren, which

are misconceived, quite possibly because they do not understand the full position.

- Thirdly, I would pick up on the suggestion of cherry-picking. If the FIA wants us to give all

of the material to McLaren which we are allowed to give, then we are perfectly happy to do

so. It was not a question of cherry-picking, choosing material that was advantageous to our

case, whilst keeping that material that might have assisted theirs. Simply, a lot of material

that is quite irrelevant. We are happy for them to see any additional material that we are

allowed to show them.

More importantly, what does the new material show? You will have received with your papers, as

Exhibit 61bis, showing exactly what the nature, timing and extent of these calls were, at different

periods. I invite you, if you have not already done so, to look at that graph. There are a series of

graphs.

Max MOSLEY

Apparently, the document is confidential and has not been circulated.

Henry PETER

It is not confidential, it is has been circulated and is our document, Exhibit 61bis.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 7

Nigel TOZZI

This combines the material from Aligarto 9 with that in Aligarto 18.

Max MOSLEY

We all have it.

Nigel TOZZI

The graph seeks to show, in pictorial and colour format, detail from the SMS messages, from Mr

Stepney to Mr Coughlan, and the replies from Mr Coughlan to Mr Stepney, as well as the telephone

calls. We know that, from 11 March to 3 July, 288 text messages were exchanged, and 35

telephone calls took place. The graph shows that the contact increased in: the period leading up to

the Australian Grand Prix; during private tests carried out by Ferrari in Malaysia, leading up to and

during the Malaysian Grand Prix; leading up to and during the Bahrain Grand Prix; and leading up

to and during the Spanish Grand Prix.

This is not the whole picture. These simply reflect the details that the Italian police have obtained,

by looking at two of Stepney’s phones. One covers only the period 21 March to 3 July, hence ten

days are missing in this graph; the other covers only 11 March to 14 April. Anything on the latter

phone is not reflected in this graph. This is still only a part of the overall picture, then.

Regrettably, we do not have the texts of the SMS messages, despite our very best efforts to do so.

As far as I am aware, the police does not either.

What conclusion can we draw from this? Mr Mill, speaking before you on 26 July, stated that:

“inferences are always open to be drawn in appropriate circumstances”. This is such a

circumstance. The obvious inference was that Stepney was feeding confidential information about

Ferrari and the Ferrari car to Coughlan. It demonstrates that the story that Coughlan told, of only

limited contact with Stepney, was completely untrue.

What was the content of that contact? Unfortunately, it is unknown and we must draw inferences.

However, we are assisted by a document not before you at the previous occasion: an e-mail that

Coughlan has disclosed in a further affidavit, in the English proceedings. That document is found

in Exhibit 57 of our bundle.

Max MOSLEY

Would it be possible for you to read it?

Nigel TOZZI

This is an e-mail dated 14 March, from Stepney to Coughlan. The subject is “drag”.

“Mike, apart from the rear wing, I don’t think this is the whole story. Once the front floor

compresses, when it makes contact with the ground, which is around the 200km per hour to full

compression,, the drag reduces quite considerably, due to reduction of air beneath the car. At the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 8

same time, the turning vanes also move. The front floor is about 100 cm long, so it is quite an

effective device, also as mentioned in my previous e-mail, as a mass damper, because it helps in

this mode to control the arrow and keep the front tyre contact patch. Other areas we look at are

rear stall, but this is difficult to control. Another solution has been found, which I’ll talk to you

some other time. Regards, Nigel.”

What does that e-mail tell you that you did not know before? It is quite clearly part of a sequence

of information exchange. He refers to an earlier e-mail in which he has passed information. He

refers, at the end, to the intention to tell him further details about another solution, presumably

another solution that Ferrari has found. Secondly, it plainly has nothing to do with so-called

whistleblowing. The utterly discredited argument that McLaren ran before you on the last occasion

to justify the admitted use of Ferrari confidential information, in order to make a complaint to the

FIA. This demonstrates, quite clearly, that the flow of information from Stepney to Coughlan was

a revelation of Ferrari’s confidential secrets. In that this is part of a flow, one going on at the dates

we saw, you can and should draw your own conclusions as to why Stepney should be funnelling

this information to Coughlan, and whether it is realistic that he should have kept that information to

himself.

As to the information being used, I have already mentioned whistleblowing, though I suggest that it

was no such thing and, rather, part of a stream of information. In any case, one does not whistleblow

to the employer’s major competitor. If any whistle-blowing was to be done, Mr Stepney

should have been sending details to the FIA. So far as we are aware, he did not provide the sort of

detailed information to the FIA which he chose to give Coughlan and, thereby, McLaren.

Secondly – and this brings us to the major piece of evidence that has come to light since the last

hearing – the e-mails disclosed by Pedro de la Rosa and Fernando Alonso show that, contrary to

what you were told on the last occasion, the information which Coughlan was receiving from

Stepney was being shared within McLaren. McLaren has tried very hard to suggest that the

information being disclosed was limited to only the two drivers, that there was no wider

dissemination within McLaren, and that we have jumped to a series of inappropriate, unfounded

conclusions. We ask you to use your common sense, stand back, look at what the e-mails actually

say and compare them with what the McLaren witnesses try to say to explain them. Ask

yourselves, “Does that ring true?” We suggest that, when you ask yourselves those questions, you

will come to the only conclusion that you can: that you are being fed a line that is not the complete

story. Moreover, this puts into context what you were told on the last occasion about, for instance:

the installation of the firewall, Coughlan’s extraordinary trip to Barcelona to tell someone to stop

contacting him, and the incredible account of the meeting between Coughlan and Neale, when

Coughlan tried to give him a document and Neale, quite deliberately, turned a blind eye.

The further documents that have come to light are found in the FIA dossiers at Tab 5. First, could

you turn to Page 61? This shows a very short e-mail dated 21 March, from Pedro de la Rosa to

Mike Coughlan: “Hi Mike, do you know the red car’s weight distribution? It would be important

for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator.”

Why does de la Rosa ask Coughlan? We would suggest that it is because he knows that Coughlan

has a link into Ferrari via Stepney. Why does he want that information? You see what he has said

in his statement. But look at what he explains in his e-mail: “So that we can try it in the

simulator”. This is not curious interest, as he attempts to portray it in his witness statements. He

wants it in order to copy it in the simulator, in his own words.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 9

I ask now that you turn to the next e-mail in the sequence. On page 52 of the English proceedings.

It is an e-mail dated 25 March 2007, sent at 01:43. De la Rosa reports to Alonso on results which

he has following the experiment in the simulator. In the versions we have, there has been a certain

amount of redaction, or blocking-out of text. Consequently, one must work out what is actually

said. Item 1 is about a variable brake balance system. This is important because, as you know –

and we have drawn this to your attention on several occasions – one of the aspects that interested

Coughlan in particular was the Ferrari brake balance system, an innovative and unique design. In

his own, discredited affidavit, Coughlan admitted asking Stepney about it on no less than four

occasions. We know also that he came back with a sketch, which he showed Taylor. Here, we see

an exchange of e-mails demonstrating that McLaren is very interested in the design of a similar

system. For those of you who are entitled to view the e-mail with all of the words left in, I invited

you do so. Regardless, in the e-mail, Mr de la Rosa is saying that, “with the information that we

have, we believe Ferrari has a similar system: they have three positions which they change from

the cockpit.” He also describes, saying: they have “A”. (In our version, the text has been blanked

out, but in de la Rosa’s version, he tells you what they are.) He says, “that was phrase which I did

not understand, something that Coughlan had told me three days earlier, which I had memorised.”

Please think about whether this sounds very credible. He says, “They have this system which

delays the rear-braking initially then proceeds to increase it gradually.” This is not an e-mail from

a man who has not understood what he has been told. “We get the same results using a valve.” In

other words, he clearly does understand what he has been told.

On Item 2, the flexible rear wing he says, “this is also a copy of the system we think Ferrari uses.

It is another two- to three-tenths of a second quicker”. Then Item 5: “information from Ferrari,

their weight distribution in Australia was ‘…’”, giving very precise details.

Max MOSLEY

Not to interrupt, but in the next paragraph of the e-mail, he states that, “it will take them a few

weeks or a month or two to have it”. That would suggest that, perhaps, the intention is to make the

same device.

Nigel TOZZI

Exactly. I agree with you.

Then there is reference to very detailed information, which De la Rosa admits having received from

Coughlan: the car’s aerobalance, and the use of an alternative to air to inflate the tyres. Here, he

comments, “We use nitrogen; we’ll have to try it, it’s easy!” They are clearly using that

information with a view toward copying it.

Alonso’s reply in relation to the brake balance is: “I hope you can try this out. I don’t know

whether it is ready". He is keen for it to be tried it. The next passage that has been blanked out,

allegedly on grounds of confidentiality. However, because we saw this before it was blanked out,

we know what it said, cannot erase it from our memories, and we have referred to it in our

submissions. I do not accept that this is in any way confidential. If you do see it, you will see what

I say that.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 10

On Item 2, the rear wing, he says, “Let’s hope this only takes one month”, indicating that he wants

this process to speed up. On Item 5, he comments in terms about the weight distribution and what

this draws attention to. “It is very important to test the [blank], since in the race, they have

something different from the rest.” You can read this for yourselves.”

De la Rosa comes back, saying: “all of the information from Ferrari is very reliable. It comes from

Nigel Stepney, their former chief mechanic. I don’t know what post he holds now. He is the same

person who told us in Australia that Kimi was stopping in Lap 18. He is very friendly with Mike

Coughlan, our chief designer, and he told him that.” He refers to something being ready for testing

on Tuesday, then says, “I agree 100%, we must test the [blank] very soon.”

You are being told that this was being passed only between the drivers and that none of this

information was shared with any of the engineers. Alonso is saying that “we must test this!”. Yet

you are asking to believe that because de la Rosa subsequently had a conversation with someone

from Bridgestone who said that this does not always work, that the entire idea was dropped. Does

this sound credible? We say it does not.

Going back to the e-mail and the information about Kimi stopping in Lap 18, there is a lame

attempt to suggest that this is not reliable, because he actually stopped in Lap 19. As you will all

know, the difference between Laps 18 and 19 may arise simply because you have enough petrol to

eke into the next lap. The key point is that Coughlan was being fed information about Ferrari’s

race plans, which he passed on to the drivers. Did the drivers keep that information to themselves?

Do you really think they would? Use your common sense. Use your knowledge of the sport. We

say you should draw some obvious conclusions.

Let me take you forward in the bundle, to page 62. This very interesting sequence of e-mails starts

with de la Rosa pressing Coughlan for details of the Ferrari braking system: “Can you explain me

as much you can Ferrari’s braking system? What are they doing?” Coughlan initially says, “it

may be difficult for you to understand”. Yet De la Rosa presses him for the information, saying,

“Fernando wants to know”. Eventually, Coughlan gives him a very detailed description of our

braking system. He must have and can only have gotten that from Stepney. You are being told by

de la Rosa that, because he did not understand it, he did not share that information with anyone.

Again, use your common sense: does his sound very credible? Here is Coughlan, disseminating

information. Bear in mind that Coughlan had said, in his affidavits, that apart from the whistleblowing,

he had no other contact with Stepney and that he had not shared this information with

anyone from McLaren. You now see a very different picture emerging.

Why does this picture emerge? Because the drivers blew the whistle, making for a very interesting

story in itself. When Alonso raised the existence of documentation on 5th August with Mr Dennis,

obviously in the context of some dispute, he mentioned the matter to your President, but did he try

to get to the bottom of it? Did he say, “If you have documents, I must have them, because I am

under duty to the FIA to take them back to the World Motor Sport Council.” No, he did not. We

received this information only because the FIA wrote to the drivers, telling them that they were

under duty to disclose. It was not been volunteered by McLaren. That tells you a great deal about

the internal investigations carried out by McLaren and their enthusiasm to volunteer information.

We therefore say: look at the facts; don’t listen to the assertions. The facts are that this is

information that FIA secured from the drivers. It did not result from an internal investigation by

McLaren.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 11

How does this fit in with the rest of the facts? According to Coughlan, we know that he spoke to

Stepney on four occasions about the brake balance and was given a drawing, which he showed to

Taylor. Mr Taylor seeks to suggest that this was nothing to him. An engineer of Mr Taylor’s

experience would instantly have known that he was being shown provided a significant

improvement in functionality. We have included evidence from Professor Genter explaining this to

you in some detail. In McLaren’s submission (the lengthy document), more is told about what was

happening in the McLaren camp. I ask that you turn to page 6 of their submissions, at Paragraph

15. It starts on page 5; I will pick up the story on page 6. “McLaren’s novel system” – purportedly

their own – is described in the following terms: “From mid-February 2007, based on an idea of Mr

Lowe, McLaren developed a novel and completely different system for achieving variation of the

relative braking mode on the front and rear axels. They say that McLaren’s system was tested on

22 and 29 March, and introduced at the Spanish Grand Prix on 13 May. It was inspected and

approved by Mr Whiting”, who is then quoted. “In the first Grand Prix, McLaren observed that

Ferrari was using lever, which it believed was likely to be part of a quick-shift system.”

Immediately after the Grand Prix, Mr Lowe instructed a team of vehicle dynamics specialists to

study footage – in effect, ordering a spying exercise to see hat Ferrari has. He says that, “Coughlan

was not involved this study. The team confirmed that this appeared to be part of a quick-shift

system.” Then, it is said that, “since some engineering resource had become free, Lowe asked

Coughlan to release an engineer to him to produce 2007 version. Coughlan released Chris Lewis

to this task. Lewis quickly designed such a system.” They add that the evidence of Lowe and

Lewis shows that this was designed entirely independently, based on McLaren’s 2001-2002 design.

If you turn to the statement of Mr Lewis, which we received yesterday, it says that: “In early April

2007” – the dates are important, bearing in mind the e-mails we have just seen – “Mike [Coughlan]

asked me to begin work to design a quick-shift brake balance adjustment system, not a particularly

difficult task, as McLaren had used a quick-shift system before, in 2001 and 2002. My work

mainly involved taking the knowledge that we already had about quick-shift systems and optimising

it for use on the 2007 McLaren car”. He exhibits a document that we have not seen. He then

confirms what Mr Lowe has said to you in a document we have not seen is correct. In particular,

he states that, “For the purposes of the quick-shift project, I reported to Mike directly, without the

involvement of my team leader, while Mike supervised the project. His involvement was no more

than the general supervision and direction he gives to all drawing projects. For example, Mike

outlined the idea that I import that 2001-2002 design into the 2007 car. I looked at that previous

design and brought it into a CAD scheme, with changes necessary for it to fit the 2007 car. Mike

and I and Pat Frye reviewer this scheme and agreed the final details. I completed the detailed

design and component drawings, which Mike approved for manufacturing.”

Here is someone reporting directly to Mike Coughlan, working on a brake-balance system. At the

same time, you have hard evidence that Coughlan is pestering Stepney for details of the Ferrari

system and exchanging that information with at least De la Rosa at exactly that time. Yet you are

being asked to accept that he did not contribute any ideas that he might have obtained from Ferrari

to the development of the McLaren system. The McLaren system may be different; of course it is,

for it was designed by different people.

We submit that the idea that Coughlan did not use any of the information he had obtained

illegitimately from Ferrari to contribute to the development of that design is so fanciful that you

should not accept it. More to the point, the people who will come along and testify the “he did not

give us any confidential information” probably don’t know. If Coughlan simply says, “have you

tried this?” or “have you thought about that?”, they are not to know that he has that idea because it

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 12

has been purloined by Stepney from Ferrari. They see it as Coughlan contributing to the discussion.

And we suggest that the fact that he is sitting on the information and pressing Stepney for details is

the clearest indication of use, or perhaps only attempted use of Ferrari’s documentation and

information. It is certainly enough for you to conclude, gentlemen, that something has to be done.

Of further interest is Mr Taylor, with whom Mr Coughlan also seeks to discuss this on the first

working day following his trip to Barcelona. He goes to him with the drawing, asking what he

thinks about it. This is part of that bigger picture that we suggest you consider. We say that there

is something odd about the fact that, in Australia, the Ferrari cars were so much better than the

McLaren cars. Yet, as you all know, McLaren has caught up. Gentlemen, if you wish to ask about

technical details, we have witnesses present. Mr Braun, in particular, will be able to deal with any

technical inquiries you may have.

Might I also remind you of something that Mr Neale said in a relatively recent press interview? It

touches upon the issue of use, what can be relied upon, etc. In the 11-12 August issue of the

Financial Times Magazine, Mr Neale stated, referring to the McLaren car: “There isn’t much on

the car that stays the same; maybe the seatbelts don’t change. From the moment the car is formed

in January to the last race in October, we make an engineering change on average every twenty

minutes. We started behind Ferrari, but what determines how the season progresses is how quickly

you can change the car.”

You will be bombarded with technical information from Paddy Lowe, saying that he knows the

DNA of every change and can tell you exactly its origin. With the greatest respect, whatever the

document you are shown and we are not, I doubt that he will be able to detail with every change

made every 20 minutes. The gap in Formula 1 is so tight that, as Dr Braun says, you can win or

lose a race by a matter of one-tenth of a second. Top teams invest hundreds of millions of dollars

to gain a technical advantage. Possession of a portfolio of information by someone as experienced

as Mr Coughlan would be worth several tenths of a second. Coughlan is a designer with 15 to 20

years of experience. He is employed on a significant salary by McLaren. He is more than the

Office Manager suggested by McLaren.

Max MOSLEY

Mr Tozzi, I do not mean to be annoying, but we are nearing the 45-minute mark.

Nigel TOZZI

I have my watch here and am quite aware of that.

The content of the e-mails is wholly-inconsistent with what you were told by McLaren at the last

occasion, where they claimed to have carried out a thorough investigation. Either it was thorough

and information was suppressed until Alonso blew the whistle, or it was not thorough, in which

case you cannot place any trust in assertions such as those made on the last occasion and which are

almost certain to be repeated on this occasion. In the context of what you now know, you must

look at the other evidence. I have already mentioned the firewall, the trip to Barcelona and the

meeting with Mr Neale. In view of the time, I will not develop those submissions. In our written

submissions, we do say that the explanations offered are fantastic, simply unbelievable and should

not be accepted, particularly in the light of the further information.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 13

We have reached a position where we know that members of the McLaren design team were

involved: Mr Coughlan certainly, as well as Mr Taylor and, possibly Mr Lowe. We know that the

Management is involved. Whatever they may say, Mr Neale quite obviously turned a blind eye to

the documents shown to him by Mr Coughlan, knowing that he had extensive contact with Stepney

and had been receiving confidential information from him. We know that the drivers are involved,

Pedro De la Rosa and Alonso both knew that Coughlan was receiving information from Stepney.

Designers, management, drivers: how many people in McLaren need to be involved before it can be

concluded that there was not only one “bad apple”, and that there is systematic failure throughout

McLaren to behave in a proper way. The conclusions we invite you to draw are listed in Paragraph

30 of our skeleton argument. I will not read them out. We do submit, bearing in mind Article 151,

that it is important that the World Motor Sport Council does something now to restore the

reputation of Formula 1 and not allow the sport to become and anarchic free-for-all.

I think I have managed to stick to my 45 minutes.

Max MOSLEY

Mr Mill, it is your turn.

Ian MILL

Gentlemen, could I start with the following central propositions:

1) The McLaren 2007 car is and the 2008 car will be 100% the product of McLaren

technology, know-how, skill and endeavour.

2) No part of either car contains or will contain any element of Ferrari confidential information

.

3) No use of Ferrari confidential information has been made, is being made or will be made, in

the design or development of either McLaren car.

With regard to these central points, we offer the following general observations by way of opening:

1) Firstly, Ferrari is unable to point to any component part which it is able to establish as

having been used by McLaren on its car. It is absolutely obvious that, over and above that

what you have seen from Ferrari and hear from it today, every step imaginable has been

taken to try to establish this. We know what sorts of steps are taken. We know what is

done in the Formula 1 world, legitimately as Mr Tozzi rightly accepts: observation,

photography, listening to transmissions, watching onboard footage, etc. I and you,

certainly, have no doubt that Ferrari has pored over every piece of information that it can

find on the McLaren car between April and today’s date. Yet there is not a single allegation

on the basis of that. The reason for this is that none can be made.

2) Ferrari is unable to make any more than a wholly-generalised assertion, backed up by

nothing more than unjustified surmise and inference that use has been made.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 14

3) The FIA does not point to any part of the McLaren car, which involves the use of Ferrari

confidential information. The FIA has had, from the outset, an open invitation as stated last

time and since repeated, to visit the McLaren premises, inspect the McLaren car, look at

McLaren records (including test records), to satisfy itself whether any use has been made.

That offer is repeated and has not been taken up. If the FIA had any genuine basis for

concern in this respect it would have taken up the offer.

4) McLaren has provided and, if you have not had the opportunity to read the documents,

compelling, clear and unequivocal evidence that no Ferrari confidential information has

been used. You have before you the very detailed, confidential statement by Mr Lowe,

attached to which is a signed statement from all of McLaren’s engineers, except the five

away on holiday and uncontactable. Every other McLaren engineer has come forward and

put their names on the document.

This case, therefore, is not one about McLaren using Ferrari confidential information in its car this

year or next. There simply is not a case to be made on that. Therefore, no question of any

substantial sanction against McLaren can arise.

What is this case about? Let us briefly recall what happened last time: we were summoned on short

notice to answer a wholly-ungeneralised charge of possession of Ferrari documents. We were

informed of the charge on 12 July, and did our best on the time available to answer it. A hearing

was held precisely two weeks later. I do not need to reiterate what occurred on that occasion. You

were there, recall it and have had the opportunity, if you needed it, to view the transcript to remind

you further. The allegations related to a dossier provided by Mr Stepney to Mr Coughlan in

Barcelona and also, possibly, the disclosure to the FIA of allegedly illegal elements of the Ferrari

car. We told you then what investigations we had carried out, we told you that we had spoken to

the engineers, putting forward the evidence of Mr Lowe and Mr Taylor. We spoke to the

Management, and put forth the evidence of Mr Neale and Mr Dennis. We instructed leading

computer experts to trawl through the computers of Mr Coughlan and McLaren. We gave Ferrari

access to do the same thing. Neither found any material document.

Nothing before you on 26 July suggested further avenues of inquiry or identified other parties about

whom McLaren should have come forward. In particular, nothing on that occasion was available to

us that we needed to make inquiries of our drivers: the FIA had not identified any material making

that appropriate, nor had Ferrari, and Mr Coughlan had certainly not told us anything about that.

We had his affidavit in the same way that you do. We put forth evidence on that occasion, which

was and remains true. The dossier was kept by Mr Coughlan in his home. No one had knowledge

of its existence. The disclosure that we knew about in March was legitimate whistleblowing. Since

that last hearing, we submit that nothing has merged calling into question McLaren’s evidence on

these matters.

There have, however, been two developments. First, the drivers came forward with information, as

a result of a letter form the President, showing that Mr Coughlan had given certain information to

Mr de la Rosa, which Mr Coughlan said he had obtained from Mr Stepney. This happened last

week. It is right to point out the background against which this occurred. Somehow, Ferrari wishes

to make criticism or point on it. Quite to the contrary: it shows McLaren in a completely proper and

straightforward light. Mr Dennis volunteered to Mr Mosley, at the time of the Hungarian Grand

Prix, that one of his drivers had told him that he had received Ferrari information from a McLaren

engineer. He then also told Max Mosley –

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 15

Max MOSLEY

I am sorry. First of all, I do not recall that being in Mr Dennis’ statement. Secondly, it is

completely untrue: he did not say that he received the information from an engineer. He told me

that he had information that was damaging, which he was prepared to give to the federation. He

did not say it came from an engineer.

Ian MILL

If I have mischaracterised Mr Dennis’ evidence, I apologise. I was not intending to engage in

evidential debate; I was simply seeking to summarise what I believed to be Mr Dennis’ evidence.

We will hear from him. If I am mistaken, I apologise.

Subsequently, he told Mr Mosley that Mr Alonso had retracted that allegation through his manager

(and Mr Mosley’s nod indicates that at least I got that part right). Mr Dennis did not believe the

original suggestion from Mr Alonso. However, the fact that he brought it to the attention of the

President of the FIA is the clearest indication that he believed that there was nothing further to be

disclosed. If Mr Dennis had known that Mr Alonso might be in possession of damaging

information, why would he tell the president of the FIA? That is hardly conduct consistent with

bad faith or dishonesty on the part of my client and Mr Dennis, in particular. It is consistent only

with our position throughout. It is said by Mr Tozzi that McLaren did not in fact investigate. You

can ask Mr Dennis why this was: he genuinely believed that the assertion was not true and it was

almost immediately retracted. Yes, he could have said that, despite his belief on this, he ought to

go back and check. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Do not infer from that any bad faith on the part

of Mr Dennis. The FIA could have told Mr Dennis to go and check. It did not. Clearly, the FIA

did not think that it was appropriate or necessary for McLaren to take any further steps at that stage.

The second development is that Ferrari has obtained – they say legally so – certain selected

documents from police files in Italy and supplied these to the FIA. These suggest, assuming that

they are accurate, contact between Coughlan and Stepney beyond that to which Mr Coughlan had

previously admitted. However, this does not mean that McLaren was aware of it. It was not. The

documents do not suggest, other than on the basis of an inference which we will rebut, further

contact between Coughlan and people in McLaren, which is material for the purposes of your

consideration. Ferrari’s response to this new information has been to make a series of wild and

unsubstantiated allegations. They are contained within the conclusion which Mr Tozzi has invited

you to read. I will invite you to do the same. I will take you through it and tell you our answers to

each point.

In response to the question as to what is in issue before you today, I will say the following: you are

being asked by Ferrari to make a series of inferences and assumptions in the absence of direct

evidence, from which you are inevitably being asked to infer that all those who come forth on

behalf of McLaren are lying and that use has been made despite the denials from McLaren

witnesses. McLaren invites you not to work on inference and assumption, when you have direct

evidence. We invite you to listen to the witnesses, read their witness statements and to do so

quietly, dispassionately and, above all, carefully, and reach your own conclusions.

What conclusion must you reach? Can you, to the standard required of you, as I will later define,

be satisfied that our evidence, which fully rebuts any inference that Ferrari might wish you to draw,

is to be disbelieved? The President, on more than one occasion, following the promulgation of the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 16

last decision of the World Motor Sport Council, has made it clear (and correctly so) that, given the

very serious nature of these matters, you would have to be satisfied to a very high standard before

you can convict of usage. I think that, in one letter, the President, in response to the letter from the

Italian MSA, referred to the need to show unequivocal evidence. In our submission, given the very

grave allegations and the fact that several of my witnesses are facing potential criminal proceedings

in Italy, you must be satisfied to a criminal standard – meaning, beyond reasonable doubt. I ask – I

require – you to look Mr Lowe, Mr Dennis, Mr de la Rosa and Mr Hamilton in the eye and, unless

you are satisfied beyond doubt that each and every one of them is lying to you, you will let us off. I

am not asking that you dismiss the charge. That is a matter for elsewhere. However, you will not

find that use has been made. If you do nonetheless do so, without being able to make those

decisions, then you are making a very serious legal error. It is not only those who are here. 140

McLaren engineers signed the letter: will you disbelieve each of them as well? If so, we will

contact them by phone and you will be able to question them. We did not bring them here, for that

would have been absurd. Nonetheless, there is a huge body of evidence showing that you cannot

and must not draw inferences adverse to McLaren on the information available to you, because

those inferences are false.

It is right, given what I have just said, that you bear in mind that this is not the referral of your

previous decision, which must go elsewhere. It has been withdrawn. However, the referral

allowed the body to which the reference is being made – our International Court of Appeal – to

look afresh at the events on the 26 July, the evidence given and the factual conclusions reached.

That is not your function. You are functus in relation to that; you cannot review your own decision.

Rather, you can consider the effect of new evidence. When you hear Mr Tozzi say that Mr Neale’s

evidence must, of course, be disbelieved, on what basis are you to do that? You made your

findings on Mr Neale’s evidence. You had your doubts about it. Mr Mosley made that clear. Yet

you did reach your conclusions. Unless something material in the new evidence entitles you to

form a different opinion about Mr Neale, that matter rests with you. If there is a subsequent referral

or appeal, that is another matter, but is it not a matter for you. This is, in short, not an opportunity

for Ferrari to make the same points as it did last time. Quite a large part of the submissions before

you today were the same put in for the International Court of Appeal. I am not criticising them for

this. Clearly, having produced a body of work, they are entitled to use it and adapt it. However,

while their assertions may have been apposite at the time, they are not so for this body today.

Could I ask for some respectful silence, from your right?

Max MOSLEY

I think you have that.

Ian MILL

It is the identity of the person that is causing concern to my client.

What is the new evidence? Mr Tozzi has taken you through the e-mails. Perhaps I should do so as

well. You will hear the evidence from Mr Lowe and Mr De la Rosa about them. Overall, so far as

Mr De la Rosa is concerned, you will hear, quite simply, that he is friendly with Mr Coughlan.

Anyone reading the last exchange of e-mails between Mr Coughlan and Mr de la Rosa in March

can see the banter about football and Brentford. Read the e-mails to yourselves to understand the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 17

relationship between the two. They are clearly friends. Mr De la Rosa says that this is why some

of the contact took place and why he shared that information with Mr Alonso. Mr Alonso was new

to the team and Spanish like him. Mr Alonso was feeling isolated and, as Mr de la Rosa wanted to

make him feel part of the team, shared the information with him, in the friendly spirit intended.

You need to familiarise yourself with the contents of those e-mails and understand and hear from

me, if necessary, why they do not show any use of any Ferrari confidential information by

McLaren. To put them in their context, you need to understand some of the background, in

particular our submissions in relation to our brake-balance system.

There is a suggestion that, in some way, use has been made of Ferrari information in our brakebalance

system. Mr Tozzi showed you the non-confidential summary of our case in that. I will not

go over it again. You can hear from Mr Lowe when he testifies on it. It shows that, whollyindependently,

prior to any contact between Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney, we were developing our

own system, one which Mr Whiting has looked at and deemed, before the Council, that it was

entirely different from the Ferrari system.

What else is there beyond that? There is the suggestion that, because Mr Lewis was supervised by

Mr Coughlan on the quick-shift system not yet on our car, that it can be inferred what Mr Coughlan

might have said or done. It is symptomatic of Ferrari’s lack of objectivity in its approach to this

case that when Mr Tozzi read Mr Lewis’ statement, he stopped at the end of paragraph 5. May I

read Paragraph 6: “At no time on the quick-shift project or at any other time did Mike give me any

Ferrari confidential information or instruct me to do something which I, in any way, suspected was

informed by Ferrari confidential information. In light of recent events, I have thought carefully

about what interaction I had with Mike on this project, to see whether the benefit of hindsight might

colour some of our interactions differently. I can honestly say it does not. What is more, given the

nature of the quick-shift project, any information he might have imparted, would have been totally

irrelevant. McLaren had all of the technology and know-how, and the design was a virtual carryover

of the 2001-2002 design. Mine was just the job of accommodating it within the 2007 car.

This required reference to the McLaren 2007 car, not Ferrari’s or that of any other team. He also

says, “I have signed the letter attached to Paddy’s statement.” Mr Lewis is here; Mr Tozzi can ask

questions; you can ask questions. But you cannot convict my client on the basis of inference and

assumption, unless you are in a position to say that Mr Lewis is a liar and you can be satisfied of

that to a criminal standard.

I will tend to him in due course, as a witness of truth – as I do Mr Lowe. Surprisingly, it is

suggested by Ferrari that Mr Lowe is not to be treated as a witness of truth. That is one of the

conclusions they invite you to draw, on the basis of a single document, and not even one shown to

you by Mr Tozzi in his opening. It is an e-mail exchange between Mr Alonso and Mr Lowe on 21

March (page 46, WMSC Dossier). Starting at the bottom of the page: “Hi Paddy, I’m sure you

have many of those, but one more. Regards, Fernando.” This refers to a photograph that Mr

Alonso had obtained of the side-view of the Ferrari car, showing part of the floor-device which the

FIA ruled illegal. In his response, Mr Lowe says, “Hi Fernando, actually I hadn’t seen a shot like

that, so thanks. I hope to get this issue clarified with Charlie [Whiting] within this week, so they

have to change it. By the way, we are now certain that the lever in their car is for brake balance.

Pedro runs our variable system in the simulator tomorrow and ready for track test on Tuesday.”

Mr Lowe says it is certain that the lever is for brake balance. Ferrari will have us believe that this

information can only have come from Mr Stepney; that is simply not so. Mr Lowe gives evidence

and exhibits a report contemporaneous with this one, showing that it was based upon entirely legal

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 18

observations of the Ferrari car, as used in the Australian Grand Prix. We have enclosed Mr

Mulholland’s report, and Mr Lowe says that it is the reason for which he wrote what he did. You

have absolutely no reason to doubt that evidence, but certainly have the possibility to examine Mr

Lowe about it. In our respectful submission, the suggestion that Mr Lowe is not to be treated as a

witness of truth, simply does not stand up to any scrutiny and we invite you to reject it outright.

The other e-mails, which I think you have seen at least in part, are dealt with by Mr Alonso and Mr

de la Rosa in their evidence. We apologise that Mr Alonso is unable to be here today; he has other

commitments and because of the relatively short notice of this hearing has been unable to change

them. Nonetheless, you have a signed statement from him. As indicated, Mr Coughlan passed the

information to Mr de la Rosa because they were friends and Mr de la Rosa passed it to Mr Alonso

to help his integration into the team. It is important to note that both have stated, in terms, that no

use was made of any of the information that they received.

That is, furthermore, corroborated by evidence. In relation to the brake balance, it will be

explained by Mr Lowe. In relation to Mr Lewis, I have read Paragraph 6 to you, and he is here to

corroborate that. In relation to other matters, the rear wing was lit upon by Mr Tozzi, with the

reference to copying it. It is absolutely clear that this was a matter of observation: the rear wing is

visible. If there is an attempt to copy, it is one being made using visible information. There is no

confidential information from Ferrari to McLaren about the rear wing. If you look at Ferrari’s own

submissions about this, in Paragraph 90, under the heading “Flexible Rear Wing”, indicate that:

“McLaren was observing Ferrari’s rear wing with the intention of reducing drag.” If that is the

conclusion you are invited to draw, so be it. I dare say that if and when we put on a rear wing

which Ferrari deems interesting, it will do the same and see how they can they improve their own

car. That is what Formula 1 is about. No suggestion of any promulgation of confidential Ferrari

information has gone into our work on the rear wing.

This leaves the evidence: on two occasions, Mr Coughlan passed on to Mr de la Rosa what he

presented as Ferrari’s pitting strategy. In relation to the Australian Grand Prix, he was not far off

the mark (one lap). On the only other occasion this happened, in Bahrain, he was completely

wrong. The point is that no one takes notice of this information. You will see all of the evidence

attesting to this. You know this yourselves, from your intimate knowledge of the sport. Everyone

gossips, but no one takes any notice of it. In particular, a team does not inform its own race

strategy based on what it might have been told about another team’s race strategy. The way in

which the race strategy is devised works upon internal thought about the circuit and the car. Mr

Lowe, in his confidential statement, which I ask you to read again if you are troubled about this, in

Paragraphs 37 to 43, clearly explains how McLaren devises its own race strategy.

The only other matters raised in the e-mails have to do with weight distribution, aerobalance and

the tyre elements. Ask Mr de la Rosa whatever you wish; he is absolutely clear that no use was

made and that no tests were carried out. If the FIA wishes to look at our test reports to verify this,

they are welcome, now as in the past. Our evidence is that no use was made. Do not work on the

basis of inferences or assumptions; test it on the evidence that you have. Examine Mr de la Rosa

and Mr Lowe. Draw your own answers from the evidence, not from assumption and inference.

Mr Taylor has arisen in the Ferrari submissions. We are puzzled by the evidence put in by Ferrari

on this matter. It seems to work on the basis of two misconceptions. The first is that we had said

that the drawing Mr Taylor said was one that looked familiar, was in reference to year 1996. I do

not remember ever saying that, and it was certainly not in our statement of facts or in our evidence.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 19

It seems to be that Ferrari has found a drawing signed by Mr Taylor in 1996 and has thus inferred

that this was the drawing to which Mr Taylor was referring. The second misconception is that we

were staying that the document was an historic document. We did not say that either. Mr Taylor

said that he did not know. He was asked whether it looked like something he had been working on

at the time. He said yes. That is still evidence, but it was not in 1996, but in 1993. I do not where

this is headed. At the moment, I am not particularly interested in asking questions of Professor

Genter or, indeed, Dr Braun It is all highly irrelevant.

In summary, it is embarrassing to McLaren and McLaren regrets that this further information did

not emerge last time. However, we respectfully ask you to accept that this was neither a matter of

suppression, as Ferrari would indicate, nor a matter for criticism, presented as the alternative by

Ferrari. We did our best using the material that we had. Mr Dennis, in his second statement,

summarises the investigations that took place. We are sorry if you do not find them adequate, but

they were genuine and intended to be helpful. We should not be punished because we failed to ask

a particular question of a particular individual, when there was no reason that we would have heard

anything other than a negative answer.

Ultimately, what matters to you today is that none of the confidential information referred to in the

e-mails was passed to McLaren engineers, nor has it been channelled into the McLaren car or race

strategy. Mr de la Rosa has been quite clear in his evidence: this was all that he received. You

cannot infer from the stream of text messages that Mr Coughlan continued to funnel information to

Mr de la Rosa; that is not his evidence. It stopped. I don’t know what Mr Coughlan’s state of mind

was. I maintain that it could well have been with the idea of going to another team. One of the

concentrations of e-mails and text messages happens to be at the time when Mr Stepney was in

contact with Mr Frye about going to Honda. We do not have the content, so we simply do not

know: were they banter, or information? We do not know. Nor do you, and you cannot draw any

inferences from it, so as to convict my client. There is no evidence that Mr de la Rosa or Mr

Alonso passed on the information to anybody else. They have denied that they have and you can

test that evidence. You have clear evidence from the McLaren engineers that neither Mr de la

Rosa, nor M Alonso nor Mr Coughlan passed on any confidential Ferrari information to them. That

is the evidence which you have. You cannot, in my respectful submission, convict McLaren on the

basis that these are untruths, without putting a specific case to the McLaren representatives whom

you would be accusing of lying. It would be quite wrong to do without all of the relevant material

before you. How can the material be deemed comprehensive, indeed, when the FIA has not taken

up the opportunity to inspect McLaren and its records? You simply cannot.

Let us turn to the Italian police file. No conclusions adverse to McLaren can be drawn from this

information. Ferrari looks at the spikes, but there was also a spike in early May, when Mr Stepney

and Mr Coughlan were discussing a move to Honda. We do not know whether the Italian police

has sought to obtain the same information in relation to communications between Mr Stepney and

other teams. We do not know what is in these files. It is fine for Ferrari to say that we are free to

come and inspect them if we wish; that freedom can hardly be of use to us today. It is stated that

Ferrari confidential information was being passed to Mr Coughlan. That may be right in part; I

simply don’t know. You cannot infer, on that basis, that it was passed on to McLaren, not when all

of the relevant parties at McLaren tell you that it was not.

Bear in mind two other points in this context. Do you think that, had there been dissemination of

Ferrari confidential information within the engineering team or the Management that neither of the

two computer experts would have found any documentary reference thereto? That no one recorded

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 20

it is inconceivable. You will hear from Mr Hamilton this morning. What is interesting about this?

Mr Hamilton did not receive any information. Test that against the two rival arguments. Ferrari

says that if the information was passed to Alonso and de la Rosa, then it must have been passed

within the team. We suggest that you believe Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso. Is it probable that, if

the information was to be used by McLaren, that they did not tell one of their two drivers about it?

It is completely inconceivable. If it was being used in testing and considered as a development for

the car, the driver is told! Drivers want to know. Test Mr Hamilton. Ask him! Unless you want to

call Mr Hamilton a liar, that evidence is, on its own, sufficient to say that you cannot possibly

convict us of a serious offence.

In summary, if there had been a complete absence of any evidence from McLaren, if we had simply

sat back and “taken the 5th”, leaving others to prove the case – the course of action typically taken

by parties with potential difficulties in defending themselves – it might be possible for you to draw

certain inferences adverse to my client, based on the material before you. Yet in circumstances

where McLaren has come forward with comprehensive evidence, doing the best we can – and I

apologise if there has been inconvenience due to the late arrival despite our working 24 hours a

day so that this information can reach you – fundamentally countering any such inferences, you

must either accept that this evidence rebuts any such inferences, or conclude that McLaren’s

evidence is untrue. Being objective, you cannot do this, unless you are absolutely satisfied that

those who come here to give evidence are lying to you. And for such an extreme allegation to be

made, you must be satisfied that those you characterise as liars are lying, beyond reasonable doubt.

This cannot be contemplated without giving the individual whose evidence you choose to reject as

lies the opportunity to deal with the finding that you are attempting to make. That does not mean

making some generalised allegation; you must put a specific allegation to him, which enables him

to respond. It is our respectful submission that the process, simply, does not allow you to do that.

We have only had one week to live with this information. Our attempts to prepare for this hearing

have been derailed and disrupted in number of ways, some inevitable (the interposition of the

Grand Prix), some avoidable (such as the service of wholly unnecessary documents upon my

clients’ principle witnesses during the process of qualifying), only to derail our preparations for the

Grand Prix, for they have now had to take up Italian legal advice to deal with this. Thirdly, it is not

permissible, in circumstances where all proper enquiries have not been made and where we have,

once again, offered the facility to inspect without that being taken up, to accuse us of lying, the

grossest and most obvious breach of natural justice.

May I now turn to the Ferrari conclusions that are before you, in Paragraph 30?

I will read out the conclusions proposed to you by Ferrari, then give McLaren’s answer to them:

A. “The illegal possession of Ferrari’s stolen materials would not have been discovered by Ferrari

had it not been notified by an unrelated third-party about them being copied onto a computer disk.

Coughlan would still be actively employed by McLaren and would still have access to Ferrari’s

confidential information”. I do not know whether this is true. Nor do you. So what? What is the

conceivable relevance of this conclusion to the issues before you today?

B. “McLaren’s ‘whistleblowing’ argument was an opportunistic fabrication.” That is an

outrageous statement, one that is completely untrue and completely unfounded. Mr Costa – and I

am looking forward to this – is apparently going to come along to state that the illegal floor device

was a minor modification merely requiring FIA clarification. Before you hear from him, I invite

you to read Mr Lowe’s response to that suggestion. The fact remains that Mr Stepney drew to our

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 21

attention a device ruled illegal by the FIA. The device was used by Ferrari in the Australian Grand

Prix, which it won. As Mr Dennis told you last time, in the interest of motor sport, we did not

protest this, despite having drawn it to the FIA’s attention before the race took place. A complaint

is made that Mr Stepney had not drawn this to the attention of the main authorities. You may know

that Mr Stepney has written to the President making it clear that he had (page 503, Ferrari dossier).

He says he mentioned it to Mr Wright –

Max MOSLEY

If you wish to make this point, then we must include the e-mails between Mr Wright and Mr

Stepney, as well as between Charlie Whiting and Stepney. If we do so, however, you will see that

they contain no detail whatsoever. If there was any hint of whistleblowing, it was not in those

documents. He had the opportunity to whistleblow at the beginning. He did not. Instead, he

communicated the information to McLaren. Whether he did so as whistleblowing or as a stream of

information is a matter for today. The fact is that he did not give us information, despite being in

touch with our people. It is up to you to make the points you wish, but I would have thought that

this entire exchange greatly undermines the whistleblowing argument.

Ian MILL

With the greatest of respect, it does not fundamentally undermine the whistleblowing argument.

Rather, it calls into question the accuracy of Mr Stepney’s statements. The only reason to even

consider that is because it has been suggested that Mr Stepney acted improperly by going to

McLaren first. Mr Stepney says that this is not what happened. Perhaps he did not give the details

to the FIA; I am not interested in going into the reasons or manner he adopted.

Max MOSLEY

I am sorry to keep interrupting you. We are very interested. If you are saying that he gave the

information to the FIA, we will produce the e-mails demonstrating that he did not. It is a

completely separate matter. What he gave to McLaren and what he gave to us are two entirely

separate things. If you wish to pursue the point, we can, but please do not suggest that there was

any whistleblowing to us, because there was not. He had the full opportunity to whistleblow to us,

being in touch with our people. He chose not to, and for some reason, to give the details to your

client. It is up to you to draw whatever inferences you will from that. Do not, however, try to

suggest that there was any whistleblowing to us.

Ian MILL

Mr Mosley, I am not interested in debating the detail with you. It is simply that Ferrari states that

there was no disclosure to the proper authorities. If the FIA says that it did not receive the detail,

so be it. But how can this affect the suggestion that the whistleblowing argument was an

opportunistic fabrication? I could see this if there were no basis for saying that that which he

disclosed to our clients was an illegal device. It cannot be said, because it was and was ruled as

such. Nothing has changed in relation to that.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 22

C. “At the hearing on 26 July 2007, McLaren formally announced that it had carried out a

thorough in-house investigation and that it could guarantee that no information coming from

Stepney through Coughlan had penetrated McLaren. There are only two alternatives: either (i)

McLaren did carry out thorough investigations, in which case it necessarily discovered the

inconvenient truth, but decided to hide it, or (ii) McLaren did not carry out thorough

investigations. In both cases, McLaren did not tell the truth to the WMSC.” Neither of those is a

justified conclusion. You have my submissions on that already. The suggestion that we discovered

an inconvenient truth is not only offensive, but completely inconsistent with Mr Dennis’ disclosure

to the President at the beginning of August. Secondly, we did the best we could with the time

available to us since 26 July. If you feel we could have done better, we are very sorry, but you did

not ask us to do anything else. I am sure that we could have been more proactive, but we did not

think about it and I am sorry for that. There is no basis for a serious sanction against us because

there were steps we could have taken which we did not.

D. “The repeated assertions that McLaren was not interested in Ferrari’s brake balance system

were dishonest.” Where does this come from? The only assertion regards Mr Taylor, who said that

he was not particularly interested in the drawing. Mr Taylor said that he was not interested in the

brake balance process at McLaren. That was not his task. It was not as though he was someone

busy working out the variable brake balance system for McLaren; he was working on something

else. Asked about it, he said he was not interested. It is not the same thing as saying that McLaren

was not interested. Of course McLaren was interested! Just as, when we put our quick-shift on our

car, Ferrari will be interested and will study the on-board footage to see what it can discern from it.

E. “The extent and timing of the contact between Coughlan and Stepney leads to the irresistible

inference that data and information about Ferrari’s cars, race preparation and race plans was

being improperly fed to McLaren by Stepney”. There is an inference that some information may

have been improperly fed by Stepney to Coughlan. There is no inference that it was going to

McLaren. The evidence adequately and completely rebuts this.

F. “Mr Lowe’s failure to reveal that he was privy to information passed on to McLaren about

Ferrari’s brake balance system casts doubt upon the objectivity and reliability of this report and

his evidence to the World Motor Sport Council on 26 July..” However it is phrased, this statement

is asserting that he lied. This is completely unjustified, baseless, groundless and false. I have

already explained why.

G/H. “The doubts which the WMSC already had about Jonathan Neale’s evidence regarding

Coughlan’s trip to Barcelona are well-founded.” “Mr Neale’s account of his meeting with

Coughlan on 25 May 2007 cannot be believed.” That is not open to say, in this hearing. Mr Neale

had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this new evidence. You heard his evidence.

There is no basis upon which you can begin reinvestigation or cast fresh doubt on that.

To be complete, I must turn to paragraph 31: “It is now perfectly obvious that McLaren did use

confidential information belonging to Ferrari which was improperly obtained by Coughlan from

Stepney. The knowledge and use of that information gave McLaren a substantial unfair advantage.

In common parlance, they were cheating.”

Please consider the complete lack of specificity in any of that. You cannot convict McLaren on the

basis of such generalised allegation. It must be specific, put it before McLaren and give

opportunity for the facts to be found. The fact that Ferrari put it in this way simply demonstrates

what I said from the outset: that there is not a shred of evidence to support any such conclusion.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 23

We suggest that these conclusions are not only baseless, but demonstrate that Ferrari has lost

objectivity in relation to this matter; they are prepared to and do make wild and defamatory

allegations against my clients. It is suggested that this has nothing to do on behalf of motor sport to

expose a “bad apple”. It has to do with the desperate need to win this season’s and next season’s

championship off the track, if it cannot achieve it where it should be won and lost, namely on the

track.

I have finished my submissions and opening in one hour, leaving me 30 minutes of your time,

which would not otherwise be available. I am aware that you have not had much time with my

client’s evidence. I am going to call Mr Lowe. You cannot hear and question Mr Lowe if you have

not read his two witness statements, particularly the confidential witness statement. If there is to be

any suggestion, in particular in relation to the brake balance system that McLaren has done

anything wrong, you must be given this opportunity. We ask you to take the half-hour to read Mr

Lowe’s statement.

Subject to the Council’s or Mr Tozzi’s requests, you will hear Mr Lowe, Mr de la Rosa, Mr

Hamilton, and Mr Dennis. Mr Lewis and Mr Taylor are both here if you wish to ask questions.

You will see that the papers contain two other statements, from Mr Sutton and Mr Cook. They are

not here and, if you read their statement, you will see that they are very much at the margins of this

matter. Can we take that half-hour to read the evidence when you are comfortable that you have

properly understood what they wish to say to you?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 24

Max MOSLEY

This sounds very helpful. In other words, you are suggesting that we remain here for 30 minutes,

to read the document.

Ian MILL

I certainly want to call them. We have also brought Mr Lewis and Mr Taylor.

Max MOSLEY

Or you might subsequently wish to call on other people.

Nigel TOZZI

I would like to make two points. It is very important for the Members of the Council to remember,

in reading Mr Lowe’s confidential witness statement, that it is not one provided to Ferrari, nor will

it be. Therefore, I do not have and have not had the opportunity to look at what he has said in order

to cross-examine him. It is a very one-sided presentation of the case. Giving that document to me

now, were it to be done, would not help the situation

Furthermore, in your timetable, you suggested that my time for questioning witnesses should be

fifteen minutes. I would point out that there are only a certain number of areas that I can cover in

that 15 minutes. I cannot cover all of the ground in that sort of time.

Max MOSLEY

We and McLaren would not expect you to do so. The point being made is that these witnesses will

demonstrate the exact opposite of your case. As far as Patrick Lowe’s confidential statement is

concerned, we will very much take into account the fact that it is not possible for Ferrari to crossexamine

and test that evidence

[The proceedings are suspended for 30 minutes, to allow Council Members the opportunity to

become more familiar with Patrick Lowe’s statement.]

II. Witness Questioning

Ian MILL

Provided you are in agreement, I will simply show my witnesses their statements and have them

confirm that their signature is indeed the one on the documents, have them confirm that their

statements are true to the best of their knowledge, after which you may ask them questions. Only

with Mr Lowe do I have a few matters that I wish to clarify.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 25

My first witness is Mr Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton, you have a copy of your statement in front of you. Please look at the second page. Is

that your signature toward the bottom of this page?

Lewis HAMILTON

It is.

Ian MILL

Have you read this statement?

Lewis HAMILTON

I have.

Ian MILL

Are the contents true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Lewis HAMILTON

Yes.

Ian MILL

Thank you.

Max MOSLEY

Mr TOZZI, do you wish to ask any questions of Mr Hamilton?

Nigel TOZZI

I have no questions for Mr Hamilton.

Max MOSLEY

Does anyone have any questions for Mr Hamilton?

Thank you very much, Mr Hamilton.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 26

Ian MILL

We are making very good progress!

Max MOSLEY

I don’t think it will go on that way…

Ian MILL

Our next witness is Mr Lowe.

Mr Lowe, in the bundle in front of you, could you turn to the last page of the Tab 2, under B

“Statement of Patrick Lowe”. Is that your signature?

Patrick LOWE

Yes, it is.

Ian MILL

Does this represent your non-confidential witness statement to the World Motor Sport Council?

Patrick LOWE

Yes, it does.

Ian MILL

Are the contents true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Patrick LOWE

Yes.

Ian MILL

Could you go on to Section C Tab 1, behind which there is a document entitled “Confidential

Statement”. Is that your signature on page 19?

Patrick LOWE

Yes, it is.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 27

Ian MILL

Are the contents true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Patrick LOWE

They are absolutely true.

Ian MILL

Mr Lowe, I informed the Council this morning that there was, annexed to this, a letter signed by

various people within McLaren. Is that right?

Patrick LOWE

Yes. That is correct.

Ian MILL

Before we turn to it, could you inform the members of the Council the background to that

document?

Patrick LOWE

Earlier this week, I feel that I was in a position to come here and represent my statement, which I

believe to be totally true. I felt very confident that I can convince you that I am an engineer of

great integrity. Many of you in the room know me and have known me for many years. You can

take that as read. I felt it would add a great deal of weight if I could show that this applied to my

entire team. I therefore drafted a letter addressed to the Council and invited the engineers to sign.

They all did so, voluntarily. It is found in the Annex; I have also brought the originals, which I can

pass around to illustrate..

Ian MILL

For the assistance of the Council, the document, which may or may not bear signatures, is found in

Annex 12. Perhaps the originals can be circulated.

Max MOSLEY

I think that we can accept that. No one is questioning that.

Ian MILL

Perhaps you could tell the Council who signed the letter.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 28

Patrick LOWE

This letter has been signed by every engineer within my Department. I manage the entire

Engineering function at McLaren, from the aerodynamics, to the design, operation, circuit, etc. No

aspect of the car’s engineering does not come within my brief and the remit of my staff. All of

them have signed, it, apart from one or two individuals who were abroad in distant countries and

were not traceable in the short time available.

They have signed on three principle points:

_ that they have not seen any of the technical information

_ that they have not incorporated any of the information

_ that the car that we built this year and the car we will build next year is wholly derived from

their own work.

Ian MILL

I have nothing further for this witness.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Lowe, I want to ask you first what you say about Mr Coughlan’s role as chief designer at

McLaren. Mr Coughlan had fifteen to 20 years of experience as a designer, did he not?

Patrick LOWE

That is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

He was paid around 300 000 to 400 000 pounds per annum. Is that correct?

Patrick LOWE

That is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

Therefore, he brought to the role a great deal of knowledge and experience, did he not?

Patrick LOWE

He did, within certain constraints.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 29

Nigel TOZZI

With regard to those constraints, you say that he had the role of a functional manager of a drawing

office. Is that not over-stating the position, Mr Lowe?

Patrick LOWE

No. The function of the Drawing Office, also known as the Design Department, is to draw the car

and show that it operates safely and reliability at the circuit, in terms of design. That does not

extend to generating the performance programme for that car.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Coughlan had ideas, did he not?

Patrick LOWE

Of course he did. Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

And when he had them, they were contributed to the pool, were they not?

Patrick LOWE

They were, and may or may not have been accepted.

Nigel TOZZI

When Mr Coughlan came up with an idea, you or anyone else could not have any idea where that

came from.

Patrick LOWE

I would not agree with that. You are trying to put words in my mouth. The ideas generated at

McLaren come from our own analysis and research. If people throw in ideas that are from a

foreign source and do not flow naturally from the developments we are pursuing, based on the

problems we have with the car, that would be immediately obvious.

Nigel TOZZI

Ideas must be generated by suggestions, formulated as: “Have we thought about trying X or Y?”

That must happen, must it not?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 30

Patrick LOWE

It does. However, I am familiar with all of the ideas that come to the pool, as you describe it,

during the period in question. I am at the centre of that process and can tell you that there is no

idea from Mike that I do not understand.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us explore that. Do you agree with this proposition: “There isn’t much on the car that stays the

same; maybe the seatbelts don’t change. From the moment the car is formed in January to the last

race in October, we make an engineering change on average every twenty minutes.” Do you agree

with that?

Patrick LOWE

I agree with that. You need to understand, however, that perhaps 80% of those changes are

responses to detail faults with the car (i.e., radius, an update to the quality of the material, etc.).

These are not performance stems.

Nigel TOZZI

You have not been able to analyse every change made every twenty minutes to the McLaren car

since January.

Patrick LOWE

No. However, as I said, most of those are quality issues or maintenance issues on the cars. Those

relating to performance are in the documents which the gentlemen here have today and which you

analysed when you last met. That is the performance schedule; it is comprehensive, complete and

exhaustive. There is nothing not on there that influences lap time. There is nothing of any dubious

nature.

Nigel TOZZI

As I do not share the advantage of viewing that information and analysing it with a critical eye, I

regrettably cannot challenge you on that. I simply wanted to say that Coughlan is part of the idea

pool, chances are made to the car every 20 minutes and you cannot possibly know the origin of

every single idea.

Patrick LOWE

I think you have used your own words and constructed them for your own purpose. I already

discussed the 20-minute issue. Yes, Mike may throw in an idea, but I am aware of the source of

every idea that contributed to the performance programme. The members here have seen it and had

every opportunity to analyse it.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 31

Nigel TOZZI

In your witness statement, paragraph 5 you say that the Chief Designer is responsible for how

things are done, but not what is to be done. You add that, “while we work collaboratively from

time to time, and the Chief Designer may be aware of what is being considered by the engineering

team, if the car concept is poor, that is not the Chief Designer’s responsibility. The fact is that

there are discussions constantly ongoing between the design team and the engineering team.

Patrick LOWE

That is not so. As I explained in my statement, the model used by McLaren is designed so that the

Chief Engineering structure generates the performance programme. That is fed into the Chief

Designer to implement. As I said earlier, while he is allowed to have ideas and did put them in

every now and then, the performance programme was generated by the chief engineers.

Nigel TOZZI

You have just told us about the letter signed by the engineers at McLaren. In the same way that I

suggest that you do not know where an idea from Coughlan has entered the picture, now would

they.

Patrick LOWE

We have covered this already.

Nigel TOZZI

I have covered you; I am asking whether you agree that the same is true of them.

Patrick LOWE

I don’t understand. We have a performance programme. Everything on it is controlled by the

Chief Engineer. The people who report to Mike in terms of implementation will deal only with that

aspect.

Nigel TOZZI

As regards the signing of the letter, am I correct to assume that the wording was put to each

engineer, who was then asked to sign off?

Patrick LOWE

Each engineer was asked to sign if they wanted and were allowed to sign in privacy.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 32

Nigel TOZZI

They are all employed by McLaren.

Patrick LOWE

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

It would be right to say, would it not, that since this affair has blown up, there is something of a

“siege mentality” at McLaren?

Patrick LOWE

I don’t know what you mean by that.

Nigel TOZZI

Read the British press, Mr Lowe. There are complaints about victimisation and the FIA

purportedly picking on McLaren. There is a siege mentality.

Patrick LOWE

I think that you are suggesting that people would have lied in signing that, and –

Nigel TOZZI

I am not suggesting that at all. I am not suggesting that they have lied, Mr Lowe. I am suggesting

that they have signed a document which, upon analysis, they cannot know to be true, as they do not

know which ideas have come from Ferrari or not.

Patrick LOWE

We all know on what ideas we have worked and know their provenance. We are absolutely

confident, as I have written in my statement and as they have all signed to now, that the said work

is wholly original.

Nigel TOZZI

I cannot ask you about the brake system, unfortunately, not having seen your confidential witness

statement.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 33

Instead, I would like to ask you about the attack that you made on Mr Costa’s statement, regarding

the alleged illegality of the Ferrari car. I will take this shortly, because I do not think it is that

relevant, but you make a big deal of it. Mr Lowe, Article 315, to which you refer, of the Technical

Regulations refers to aerodynamic influence: “with the exception of the cover described in Article

652 and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic

performance, must, in compliance with rules regarding bodywork, be rigidly secured to the entirely

sprung part of the car”. Rigidly secured means having no degree of freedom. That is the part on

which you suggest that the Ferrari car was in breach.

Patrick LOWE

Absolutely.

Nigel TOZZI

Do you agree with me that nothing is infinitely rigid?

Patrick LOWE

I don’t know, Mr President, whether we want to explore the finer details of Article 3.15 today. It is

a very complex topic; Charlie Whiting is very familiar with it.

Nigel TOZZI

Do you agree with me that nothing is infinitely rigid?

Patrick LOWE

I do agree, hence there are refinements to this in Article 3.17.

Nigel TOZZI

Exactly. The way the rigidity is tested.

Patrick LOWE

But –

Nigel TOZZI

Follow my questions, please!

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 34

Ian MILL

My witness is in the middle of an answer. My friend will wait for him to finish.

Nigel TOZZI

I will not be told by my friend what to do, but I am happy to let the witness finish.

Patrick LOWE

Article 3.15 is a very complex and old regulation. The refinements in Article 3.17 do not offer an

exclusion, but rather practical guidance on some aspects of 3.15, as Charlie Whiting knows.

Nigel TOZZI

The test for rigidity is that provided for in 3.17-4, namely that the bodywork may deflect no more

than 5 mm vertically, when a 500-Newton load is applied vertically to it, at a point which lies on

the car centre line and 380 mm rearward of front-wheel centre line. That was the test, was it not?

Patrick LOWE

The test in 3.17 does not absolve one of full responsibility under 3.15.

Nigel TOZZI

That was the test, was it not?

Patrick LOWE

It is not an exclusive test, as to your compliance with 3.15.

Nigel TOZZI

That was the test, was it not?

Patrick LOWE

I have already answered that.

Nigel TOZZI

No, you have not. The answer is “yes”, Mr Lowe, because I just read it from the regulation.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 35

Patrick LOWE

That is your answer.

Nigel TOZZI

No, I read it from the regulation. And if you comply with the test, you are deemed to comply with

3.15.

Patrick LOWE

We could spend all day on Article 3.15, with all due respect.

Max MOSLEY

Could I intervene? The situation is as follows. Mr Tozzi means that it is completely wrong to

describe Ferrari’s system in Australia as illegal; it is one that passed the test as it then existed. You

then quite rightly challenged this, and Charlie issued a reinterpretation of the test.

Patrick LOWE

I think the issue is being blurred again by Ferrari. There were two stages to the clarification from

the FIA. In the first, it was said that “you will remove illegal devices”. An illegal device is a

mechanism with pivots, springs, and degrees of freedom that allows one to cynically exploit the

behaviour required in 3.17, in contravention of 3.15. There was a further later clarification that

changed the understanding for the test. Those are two separate issues. That is clear in my

statements.

Max MOSLEY

I do not think that anyone on the World Council would seriously consider that the Ferrari device

was illegal at the time, any more than the Renault mass damper before it was eliminated.

Nigel TOZZI

I am very grateful for that. It was important that this be clear, as these proceedings are apparently

going to be made public. McLaren has repeatedly asserted, wrongly, that the Ferrari car was

illegal, and it is appropriate that the world knows that it was not.

Patrick LOWE

I find that an extraordinary positioned: that something should be only illegal when it is clarified to

be so.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 36

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Lowe may find that extraordinary. You have said what you have said, so it is on the record.

Mr Lowe, what about the interesting question about the McLaren car? You tell us, in Paragraph

26, that when the testing was changed for the Spanish Grand Prix, the concept of McLaren’s front

floor attachment remained unchanged. Did the detail remain unchanged, Mr Lowe?

Patrick LOWE

The stiffness required by the test was increased.

Nigel TOZZI

You were using buckling stay, were you not?

Patrick LOWE

You clearly have not read my statement.

Nigel TOZZI

Oh, I have read it.

Patrick LOWE

That means you do not believe my statement, where I say that we did not use a buckling stay.

Nigel TOZZI

I have a series of photos – a very interesting series of photos – of your car, which show buckling

stay, Mr Lowe.

Patrick LOWE

That is what you assume to be a buckling stay, but you fail to understand the behaviour it has.

Max MOSLEY

Can you help us, because I do not understand and perhaps others do not. If it is not a buckling stay,

what is the proper description.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 37

Patrick LOWE

It is a pre-buckled stay. It is already in the buckling mode before the start.

Buckling implies that it is stiff initially, then buckles. This means it would be very rigid at the

start, then very soft, which would cynically exploit the behaviours in Article 3.17.

Nigel TOZZI

Your suggestion is that nothing on the pre-buckled stay was changed following the change of test

by the FIA.

Patrick LOWE

I did not say that nothing was changed; I said that the concept remained the same. The

characteristics were changed, because the stiffness requirement in 3.17 were changed.

Nigel TOZZI

Exactly. When I asked whether the detail had changed, I thought you said no.

Patrick LOWE

I said yes.

Nigel TOZZI

In other words, when the rule changed, it was not only Ferrari that had to change its car; McLaren

did too.

Patrick LOWE

We changed the detail, as I stated a minute ago, but we did not change the concept.

Nigel TOZZI

It is the pot calling the kettle black.

Patrick LOWE

Those are your own words, and I think you know how you arrived at them.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 38

Max MOSLEY

Could I raise a couple of points?

We were told, during the last hearing, that Mr Coughlan did not communicate into the system; his

contribution was the sign-off. “If he were here, Mr Lowe would tell us that any of the McLaren

designers, if they wish to add a new idea, must clear it with others, in particular with him.” We

were given the strong impression that Mr Coughlan was signing off drawings. That is not entirely

true, is it?

Patrick LOWE

That he was just signing off drawings? I do not know what you are referring to, exactly. That

would be an over-simplification. I absolutely acknowledge that.

Max MOSLEY

We are then told, on page 12 of your statement, that “Pat Frye held several brainstorming sessions

with Mr Coughlan. I have specifically checked with Pat Frye, and he has confirmed with me that

Mr Coughlan did not impart any Ferrari confidential information.” You have stated several times

that you did not impart confidential information. You did have a spectacular idea…

Patrick LOWE

Yes, I am rather proud of that idea.

Max MOSLEY

“Thinking laterally overnight, I suddenly hit upon a solution.” I will not read anymore, because it

is a bit confidential. It was like a brainwave, in effect.

Patrick LOWE

Yes, it was really. One of those that comes about once a year.

Max MOSLEY

Then, it has been admitted that Mr Coughlan produced a few ideas himself. You said so just now.

Patrick LOWE

Generally speaking, or on this project?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 39

Max MOSLEY

Generally.

Patrick LOWE

Of course. Every engineer can, without reference to position, can submit an idea.

Max MOSLEY

What most people find a bit difficult was that on 20 April, Mr Coughlan was given this absolutely

extraordinary dossier. You do not know the contents, but believe me that it is a gold mine for

anyone interested in racing cars. You don’t know what is in that?

Patrick LOWE

No. Well, I have seen the titles, because they are in the dossier. I don’t know anything in there.

Max MOSLEY

How are you and all of your engineers are able to tell us, then, with absolutely certainty, that none

of these details appear on the McLaren car?

Patrick LOWE

I understand, Max, that this is a very central point.

As I said at the last hearing, we have 140 engineers working in one office. It is very large, but

works very effectively. We are a very close community, and know everything that is coming in.

We would thus be able to recognise anything that is of foreign origin, so to speak. The philosophy

of our design operation is one of strong analysis. This is why we are one of the leading teams.

This has not happened by accident. I have great respect for the technical ability of Ferrari. Many

teams do not. That is why I have stayed at McLaren for such a long time: because this philosophy

is in-tune with how I think an engineering team should be run and what would make me proud to

win. I understand the issue. In that community, if people are submitting foreign ideas, we do not

want them and I don’t think they are useful.

The value of the dossier is overstated. I have 780 better pages which I do not have the opportunity

to read. I don’t know why Mike Coughlan took position of the dossier, as is alleged. I can only

think that he had some sort of collector’s mentality. I have come across engineers who like

collecting things, like people collect stamps. It is of so little use, genuinely. What we need on our

car is what has to do with our car, not on someone else’s. There are teams that obtain information

from the experience and knowledge of the staff they bring in. We do not bring in engineers from

other teams, on the whole. We like to build people on their experience over years. I believe Ferrari

has the same philosophy. We do not buy in ideas from elsewhere. We need to generate our own

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 40

performance. That is the formula that takes you to the top, rather than a copying formula, which

can take one to fourth, third or second place at best.

Max MOSLEY

That is not quite the point. Rather, it is very difficult for anyone to believe that you and the other

engineers can say with certainty that Coughlan’s contributions did not originate in this dossier,

when you do not know what is in it. You do see the point?

Patrick LOWE

I have looked at the headings in the dossier, first to rule out all of those that have no possible

influence. You should understand that Mike Coughlan is not someone who could have walked up

to a race car and make a recommendation without explaining himself. Each of the engineers

working in their respective areas know what they are doing understand what they are doing and

why they are doing it. Mike Coughlan does not have the ability to influence all aspects of the car

or the business. His area is very constrained. I have been able to look in detail at all of the areas

that he could have influenced to see what issues of novelty were generated in those areas at that

time. That is all captured in the performance sheet that you have all seen. I know the pedigree of

everything on that sheet, so I can know that nothing from that dossier has affected our car. I can

because I know where everything in that car came from. It is listed on that sheet. In fact, very few

of those ideas, absolutely, let alone those listed, came from Mike Coughlan during the period of

interest.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Lowe, I want to pick you up on the suggestion that the Ferrari dossier which you were just

shown by the President of the FIA, would have been of so little use to McLaren. It is right, is it not,

that all teams closely inspect each other’s cars in the paddock and in television footage.

Patrick LOWE

That is right.

Nigel TOZZI

And if something is spotted, the teams will try to work out, through observation, what that is and

what it is doing, in order to determine whether there is some area of that which they need to catch

up on.

Patrick LOWE

There are two reasons for this: ensuring that the competitors are operating within the legal limits;

and you are always interested, particularly in aerodynamics, as I explained the last time.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 41

Nigel TOZZI

So, you scrutinised onboard camera footage?

Patrick LOWE

That is right; I explained this last time.

Nigel TOZZI

You even go to the extent, when cars are lifted on cranes, of performing image analysis to

determine the car’s weight distribution, do you not?

Patrick LOWE

We have, on occasion. Actually, we have not done that for a while.

Nigel TOZZI

Before a race, your engineers analyse the difference in lap time between the third and fourth

qualifying lap of every driver in order to predict pitting strategy, don’t you?

Patrick LOWE

That is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

Thus, when you say that the dossier of so little use, this must be put in the context of an operation

that spends millions of dollars constantly and legitimately spying on competitors’ cars. Yet, you

say that if you were to receive the dossier, it would be of little use. Is that your evidence, Mr

Lowe?

Patrick LOWE

It is a question of relative value. On aerodynamics, for instance, there is a lot of interest. But in

most cases, if not in all, the data actually proves to be of no value.

Nigel TOZZI

Let me give you the chance to answer this. It is a question of credibility, in fact. You are asking

the World Motor Sport Council to accept your assertions that no idea came from Ferrari in a

McLaren car. Yet, at the same time, you ask it to believe that the Ferrari dossier is of “so little

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 42

use”. I would suggest that this indicates that your evidence on this issue is not reliable, because the

dossier plainly would have been of use.

Patrick LOWE

I restate the position. It would not have been of great use. That is objective assessment. The fact

is that we did not see the dossier; nobody in the company did. It is all hypothetical. Our car is

completely different from the Ferrari. It is amazing how close the cars end up in lap time. The

value of someone else’s information is extremely limited from the outset.

Max MOSLEY

Did you want to ask any further questions, Mr Mill?

Ian MILL

I do not have a question. I have an observation, which I feel it is important to make at this point,

otherwise my friend may make a comment at the end of the hearing.

Max MOSLEY

Is this the right moment?

Ian MILL

Yes, otherwise Mr Lowe’s examination may come to an end, therefore it is important that I make

this observation prior to that. One of the conclusions that Ferrari invites you to draw in its skeleton

argument, which I read out and dealt with in my opening submissions this morning is that Mr

Lowe’s failure to reveal that he was privy to information about Ferrari’s brake balance system cast

doubt about the objectivity and reliability of his report and evidence to the World Motor Sport

Council.

That was based upon a complete misconception of Mr Lowe’s e-mail, which you read this morning,

dated 21 March. I observe that Mr Tozzi has not put that allegation to Mr Lowe. The only

conclusion one can draw from that is that Ferrari withdraws it. If it does not do so, for Mr Tozzi

him not to do so is completely improper and we can take it as read.

Nigel TOZZI

You cannot take it as read, and my learned friend knows that.

The difficulty is that you have a stack of material dealing with the brake balance system that I do

not have. As I have stated several times now, I cannot cross-examine when I am not given the

material with which to challenge any answer that the witness gives. I leave that proposition on the

table and am happy, if my learned friend so wishes, to take Mr Lowe to the one e-mail that I have

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 43

on this point and ask him a question about it. One must bear in mind the constraints under which I

must work, putting a case on a point when I do not have the material.

Ian MILL

There was no constraint in making the accusation in the skeleton argument, based on one e-mail.

You cannot leave it on the table. You need to hear Mr Lowe’s response to the case specifically

made on the e-mail. .

Nigel TOZZI

Rather than playing lawyer’s games, let me raise the question. The e-mail is in the FIA dossier,

behind Tab 5, on page 46. Mr Lowe, in that e-mail, in the second paragraph, you say: “By the way,

we are now certain that the lever in their car is for brake-balance”. Mr Lowe, certainty is a very

high test. One way to reach it is from a source you know to be impeccable, such as Mr Stepney.

Patrick LOWE

That is a correct observation, hypothetically.

Nigel TOZZI

As I understand it, you say that this was not the basis for your certainty, but rather it was reports

which you received.

Patrick LOWE

It was partly from reports, and partly from an assessment which we made. Analysis of the situation

shows that there are no other things that this could possibly be. That is the principal reason for the

certainty. There are so few things possible within the regulations. That was our feeling, but we

applied some rigour to that thinking. As I explained in my statement, a number of us brainstormed

and came to that conclusion.

Nigel TOZZI

That evidence, which you say you say you explained in your statement about brainstorming is not

evidence that McLaren wishes Ferrari to see.

Patrick LOWE

I thought you had received a redacted copy. I formed a redaction yesterday.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 44

Nigel TOZZI

As far as I know, I did not receive it, so I have to leave the matter there.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much. This is perhaps a convenient moment to stop for lunch. It is presently 1:15

PM; I suggest we reconvene here at 2:15 PM.

Ian MILL

Is there anything I can do to help those around me? We will call Mr de la Rosa and Mr Dennis; this

seemed essential . It might be helpful if we knew whether Mr Lewis or Mr Taylor were needed. If

you do not know, that is fine, but if you have some indication, it would help us adjust accordingly.

If it is helpful to my learned friend, considering the learned debate that he and Mr Lowe have had

before the World Motor Sport Council, it would probably be a complete waste of everybody’s time

that I question Mr Costa. I can say that there is no need for me to hear him. I am entirely content if

the World Motor Sport Council wishes to take his evidence as read. I do not need him to be here, if

that is helpful to you. The only person I would need to see is Dr Braun.

Nigel TOZZI

That is very helpful. I do not mean to be mean to either Mr Lewis or Mr Taylor, but at this stage, I

would prefer for you to keep them here. Perhaps we can review, immediately after lunch, whether I

will ask them any question.

Max MOSLEY

That might be prudent.

Nigel TOZZI

Just one more point: we and you may conclude that it may be helpful to hear from Mr Neale again.

Max MOSLEY

Indeed.

[The session is suspended from 1:15 PM to 2:15 PM.]

Max MOSLEY

Mr Mill, is Paddy Lowe still in the building?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 45

Ian MILL

I am sure he is.

Max MOSLEY

Could we have him back for a few minutes?

Thanks for returning, Paddy. I have just a couple of points which I should put to you, giving you

an opportunity to comment. First, would you agree that, for the team’s race strategy, it is very

important and even useful to know precisely how much fuel is used and what their weight is, before

the race?

Patrick LOWE

It would be useful, but as I said in my statement, it is one of the bits of information that even the

teams do not make up until the very last moment. Whilst it would be useful, then, it is impossible

to have information of accurate nature.

Max MOSLEY

Is that correct that the team does this at the last minute? Surely it decides its fuel load on the

Saturday evening?

Patrick LOWE

Perhaps we are confused here. You were referring to knowing the team’s fuel load after the

qualifying and before the race? I have answered the wrong question.

Max MOSLEY

I am privileged to have the list of the top 10 teams, with this information. That would be very

useful to a competing team, would it not?.

Patrick LOWE

No, because by that time, the die is cast. All of the cars are fuelled.

Max MOSLEY

The fuel level cannot be changed, but you might react.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 46

Patrick LOWE

There is no way to react. What can you do?

Max MOSLEY

Ross Braun does this all the time for Ferrari. I think that most people have someone there to react

as they do during the race. Should the safety car come out in the first stint, it might be useful to

know who is going to stop when, based in the weight information.

Patrick LOWE

I see what you are getting at. We do not know, ultimately, where we are going to stop. The

prediction is not precise. Teams want to save fuel wherever possible. That is why my first answer

still applies. Hypothetically, it would be useful, but practically speaking, it is never sufficiently

accurate to be useful.

Max MOSLEY

Secondly, would it be possible to run something in a simulator at McLaren, without the engineers

operating and programming the simulator knowing what you are running?

Patrick LOWE

Absolutely not.

Max MOSLEY

Lastly, would you agree that the weight distribution and the aerodynamic balance of a car are

critical and useful parameters?

Patrick LOWE

They are important in terms of performance of one’s own car. A great deal of lap time can be

generated by optimising the two parameters. However, they only work when operating one’s own

vehicle. The philosophy applied to the design of the car, at a fundamental level, dictates where

those optima lie. That can be very different from one car to the next. We know, in general terms,

where different cars teams on that spectrum. We feel that we are toward the forward end of the

grid, where weight distribution is concerned. We know that Renault – as it has admitted, and as we

can see from the relative performance – is at the other extreme, and this has had a significant

impact on them this year. It is a parameter which we continually explore to achieve the best

performance with the car.

In the last season, when we first ran the new tyres in December, we did a great deal of testing on

weight distribution, to determine whether we should push forward or rear-ward. We found that the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 47

forward push was better for us, under all circumstances. If you consider the technical schedule that

I distributed both this time and last, it includes a large section on weight and weight-saving,

specifically at the rear of the car. For us, the policy this year has been to move forward as quickly

as we can. This has been limited not by where we wanted to be, but where we could reach. The

engineering has been influenced in large part by this. In response to questions earlier, that is what

occupied Mike; it was the focus of most of the projects in which he was involved.

Max MOSLEY

With the aim of moving the weight forward.

Patrick LOWE

Yes. As you know, we had a small issue with our gearbox introduction in Hungary. This was a

great example of that policy.

Max MOSLEY

Those were my supplementary questions. Does anybody want to add anything?

Ian MILL

Mr Lowe, are you involved in the pitting strategy for McLaren at Grand Prix competitions.

Patrick LOWE

I am involved in discussions about what we might do.

Ian MILL

During those discussions, do you take into account information you might have received from

whatever source about what other teams might be doing?

Patrick LOWE

No, not at all. The input to those discussions relate to our own study of the particular race at hand.

The performance of the other teams does not enter the picture. We look at the relative performance

of our car, with previous events. We would not bring in data points from an external source, as

they would be completely untrustworthy and would skew the results in a way we would not want.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 48

Ian MILL

Mr de la Rosa is our next witness.

Nick CRAW (via teleconference)

I have a question for Mr Lowe.

Max MOSLEY

I am afraid it is too late; he is gone.

Ian MILL

He can come back, if you want him back.

Nick CRAW (via teleconference)

I do have a question for him, Max.

Max MOSLEY

All right, we will bring him back quickly.

Paddy, our American member has a question for you by telephone.

Nick CRAW (via teleconference)

Mr Lowe, setting aside the question s to whether any of the Ferrari intellectual property was in fact

put to use by McLaren, would it be a fair statement to say that the two drivers were aware that

intelligence was coming from Ferrari?

Patrick LOWE

I did not know that until the recent e-mail declarations.

Nick CRAW

The April 14th e-mails. Mr Taylor was also aware that information was coming in from an outside

source.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 49

Patrick LOWE

He was shown a drawing, which he has described in his statement. He did not know where that

came from.

Nick CRAW

Was Jonathan Neale also not aware that information was coming in from Ferrari.

Patrick LOWE

He was aware only of the whistleblowing episodes from the Australian Grand Prix

Nick CRAW

Mr Coughlan was quite aware of what was coming in. It is fair to say that Mr Whitmarsh was also

aware.

Patrick LOWE

He was also aware of the whistleblowing items described in the statements.

Nick CRAW (via teleconference)

That is my question. Thank you.

Max MOSLEY

That is all for Mr Lowe. Thank you.

Ian MILL

Mr de la Rosa, you have a statement in front of you. Is that your signature on the final page?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, it is.

Ian MILL

Do you recognise this as your witness statement to the World Motor Sport Council?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Segue: vai alla parte 2

McLaren Formula 1 dossier multa penalizzazione Ferrari spionaggio errore