Parte 2

Paris, 13 September 2007 50

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes.

Ian MILL

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

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes.

Ian MILL

Thank you. I have no additional questions for my witness.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr de la Rosa, please turn to paragraph 8 of your Witness Statement, in which you tell us about the

observations made on your competitors’ cars. It is correct to state, is it not, that you, personally,

and McLaren as a team, are very interested in what your closest competitors are doing.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, we are interested in all of our competitors, especially after qualifying, based on the delta in lap

time, between the Q2 and Q3. We deduce from this – as do all participants – the expected pit stop

strategy arrivals. We do this for everyone.

Nigel TOZZI

You covered just one point there; but you make four points in Paragraph 8 on the various stages of

observations. The difference in lap time between Q2 and Q3 is important because one of the pieces

of information that is of importance to you is when a competing team is going to make its pit stop.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, we look at all of this. We look also at sound analysis, based on onboard camera footage. We

analyse the sound, look at the revolutions and thereby determine the speed. This helps us overlay

the speed traces of our competitors’ cars. We do this on every race we can.

Nigel TOZZI

You would not do that if you did not think the information resulting from it would be of no use.

You only do it because you think the information is going to be useful, don’t you.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 51

Pedro DE LA ROSA

We do it regularly, at all times, as a discipline. That is regular practice. Every morning, we have

our homework done.

Nigel TOZZI

Can you turn forward in your witness statement to Paragraph 16, where you refer to an e-mail sent

to Mike Coughlan. Keeping your witness statement open, can you find or be given a copy of that

e-mail? It is in the FIA dossier, behind Tab 5, page 61.

This is the e-mail where you asked Mr Coughlan’s about the red car’s weight distribution. The red

car is the Ferrari, is it not?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Absolutely.

Nigel TOZZI

You say that “it would be important for us to know so that we could try it in the simulator”.

Two points: did you address that question to Mr Coughlan because you expected him to know the

answer?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I was expecting him to at least look for the answer, because at the Australian Gland Prix, one of the

cars was picked up. Whenever this happens, everyone is eager to calculate the weight distribution

based on the point at which the car is picked up, the angle, etc. Also, in the back of my mind, I

knew that he had told me in which lap Kimi would stop. This was not correct, as it was one lap

later, but still, it was possible that he had more information.

Nigel TOZZI

He has been described as Mr Lowe as having the role of a functional manager of a drawing office.

What would you expect the functional manager of a drawing office to know the weight distribution

of the Ferrari car?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Regardless of his title, Mike is someone I knew him from my Arrows day in 1999; I had quite a

good and long-standing relationship with him. Whether he was Functional Manager or Chief

Designer, did not matter.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 52

Nigel TOZZI

Is the real reason not that you already knew, at this time, that he was receiving information from

Nigel Stepney?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

That is not correct. I learned from Mike that he was receiving confidential information from Nigel

Stepney on 22 March, when I went to the simulator.

When I asked about the weight distribution, he came back with two text messages, saying that this

was the weight distribution.

Nigel TOZZI

You then used that information in the simulator, did you not?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No, but I must tell you why. When Mike told me the figure, it was so radically different from ours

that there was no way that our care could ever achieve that. The whole philosophy of our car was

to move the weight forward. We had managed to take some weight from the gearbox. There was

no point. At the previous stage, I thought the information might be important and that we could try

it in the simulator, but then the figures were so different.

Nigel TOZZI

Your intention had been to use any information that Mike Coughlan sent to you to try things out in

the simulator.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Had it been an interesting figure, I might possibly have at least tested it. Unfortunately, at that

moment, I did not think that it was interesting.

Nigel TOZZI

The information that he gave you, as you state in Paragraph 17 of your Witness Statement was

“precise weight distributions and also a precise figure for the aerobalance”. That is information

that is very useful, isn’t it?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 53

Nigel TOZZI

Let me suggest why: for optimising the car’s stability and balance.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I don’t know how much you know about Formula 1. The aerobalance is dependent primarily on the

wind tunnel data. It is a number, but every wind tunnel is different. He also sent me a text message

with that figure.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr de la Rosa, having asked this question and having received a very precise answer from Mr

Coughlan, are you asking the World Motor Sport Council that you then did not share that

information with any of the engineers when you went to the simulator on the next day?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

You had that information on your mobile phone then, but then kept it to yourself.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

At that stage, I kept it to myself, then I shared it with Fernando. All of the information that can to

me from Mike, I shared with Fernando. I did not share it with any engineers.

Nigel TOZZI

What was the point of sharing it with Fernando if you believed the information to be of no value,

given that the McLaren car was so different from the McLaren car.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Because it was information. It was information I had learned from Mike. It is something that all

drivers do. Drivers talk about set-ups, formulas, cars. This is common practice.

Nigel TOZZI

And with your engineers, Mr De la Rosa.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 54

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did not. We are focused on our cars. I can assure you of that.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us look at Paragraph 20 of your Witness Statement. You say that, on 22 March, Mr Coughlan

told you that he believed the Ferrari system to be based on a “double-rear master cylinder with a

spring”, which initially delayed rear braking, then increased it gradually. You gave evidence

saying that you did not understand what he was talking about.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, I am a driver. I am not an engineer. When he started talking about the double-rear master

cylinder with a spring, that was too much to me.

Nigel TOZZI

Why do you think that Mr Coughlan whispered this to you?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

When he whispered to me, I realised that he was not willing for anyone to listen.

Nigel TOZZI

This was the occasion when he told you, according to your statement, that he was receiving

information from Mr Stepney.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No. He told me that when I asked him how he could be so precise about the weight distribution.

Nigel TOZZI

When did you have this conversation?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

On the 22nd.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 55

Nigel TOZZI

I think there is a misunderstanding. I am referring to the 2nd.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I know. It was before he told me this. That is what I was talking about.

Nigel TOZZI

You also stated that he told you about the way that Ferrari inflated their tyres. You think that is the

only information and were surprised by this. When he told you he was receiving information from

Mr Stepney, whom you understood to be the Chief Mechanic at Ferrari, did you ask him any further

questions about that?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I understood that he was an ex-Chief Mechanic at Ferrari. I did not anything more.

Nigel TOZZI

From the way Mr Coughlan told you this, did you understand that he was entitled to this

information, or that it was something that he had obtained improperly?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No, it was his friend. Possibly, they went to dinner together and had relations that I did not know

about. I expected, as it always happened, that if they talked about engineering – Mike’s passion –

they would talk about their cars. In this business, I always expected Mike to tell him as well thing

about our car. You give and you receive; that is how it works between drivers.

Nigel TOZZI

It is not usual for a Chief Mechanic of a rival team, particularly Ferrari, to pass on very detailed

information of this nature, though. You would not expect that, would you, Mr de la Rosa.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did not know what Mike was giving back.

Nigel TOZZI

You knew it was wrong, didn’t you?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 56

Pedro DE LA ROSA

It was common practice in Formula 1. If that is wrong, then we are all wrong. That is what I have

been doing. I have been listening with all of our fellow drivers. I can give you lots of examples, if

you want. I don’t know what all of this is about. This is common practice. We talk about car setups,

rivals, etc., all day long. It is our passion. It is as simple as that. There is nothing else.

Nigel TOZZI

I suggest that you knew it was wrong that Coughlan was receiving this information and that you did

nothing about it.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did nothing about it.

Nigel TOZZI

And you are an employee of McLaren, are you not?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No. I am an agent.

Nigel TOZZI

You work for McLaren.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I am one of the test drivers, but strictly speaking, I am not an employee.

Nigel TOZZI

I accept that.

Let us look at Paragraph 24 of your witness statement. This is the testing you say was performed.

You say that, “I did not mention to any engineers any of what Mike had told me.” Mr de la Rosa,

bearing in mind the answers you told the World Council only five minutes ago – that this was your

passion, that you do it all the time – why didn’t you exchange this information with your engineers.

Or did you?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 57

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did not. I did not because there was no point in talking about things that were completely out of

our range. You also have to be careful about what you talk about with your engineers. At the end

of the day, you do not know how reliable Nigel Stepney was. Mike Coughlan had made mistakes

too, with the stops in Bahrain.

Nigel TOZZI

I will come to that.

You are contradicting yourself. You are offering as your explanation of the fact that Coughlan was

receiving the information from Stepney because it was a shared passion and that everyone talked.

But then you are saying, in the next breath, that you did not mention it to anyone else. That is a

contradictory position.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did not mention it to anyone else but Fernando Alonso. Everything I knew from Mike is in the emails

to Fernando.

Nigel TOZZI

I will give you a chance to answer this: why not?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Because the weight distribution was so different from ours and our philosophy that it was out of the

question.

Nigel TOZZI

Please turn forward to paragraph 29, where you discuss the e-mail that you sent to Mr Alonso, on

25 March. Keeping that open, can you find the e-mail in the FIA Dossier, behind Tab 5 (page 52 in

the English version and page 48 in the Spanish version). This is a string of e-mails. You are

reporting to Mr Alonso on how you fared in the simulator, to update him on projects you were

working on. Item 1 concerns the variable brake balance. Toward the end of that, you say “with the

information we have, we believe Ferrari has a similar system, but they have three positions which

they change from the cockpit. They have a [blank]” – the blank reflecting exactly what Mike

Coughlan had told you three days earlier – “which apparently delays the rear braking initially,

then increases it gradually. We get the same results using a valve”.

In your witness statement, you say that you had not really understood what Mr Coughlan had told

you. If that was so, why bother passing this information on to Mr Alonso?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 58

Pedro DE LA ROSA

When I explained to Fernando the brake balance system, which we had been developing since 7

February, I explained our system (as in Point 1). In the last point of that paragraph, I say that we

think Ferrari has a similar system, but they have three positions which they change from the

cockpit. That is what I knew from the analysis that we had performed based on the camera footage

and a study that some McLaren engineers had done.

Our system, I must say, was developed well before this e-mail. It is based on problems that we had

in our Week 48 November tests: we were locking the fronts every time we used the break and we

already started to think that we should do something to adjust the brake balance. The process had

thus begun well before that. In the books there is a picture of the Ferrari lever. This is not strictly

confidential and unknown to everyone but experts. These are books that are commercially

available. There is nothing confidential.

Nigel TOZZI

You wrote, “They have a double-rear master cylinder with a spring, which initially delays rear

braking, then increases it gradually”. You are passing on to Mr Alonso exactly what you said you

had been told by Mr Coughlan three days earlier, though you say that you had not understood it.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, exactly. What does this mean ?

Nigel TOZZI

Why were you passing this on to Mr Alonso?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I was passing everything along. It did not make much sense to me, but I was passing everything I

heard along. Everything I passed on did not have to be 100% certain or fully-integrated by myself.

Nigel TOZZI

How did you know that you were achieving the same result, using a valve?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Our system is based on a valve.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 59

Nigel TOZZI

But how did you know that you were achieving the same result? The same result as Ferrari?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

We were adjusting the brake balance. I was explaining to him that we did that with a valve, a very

different system.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us look at Item 2: the flexible rear-wing. You were aware that McLaren had tried to raise an

objection to Ferrari’s flexible rear-wing with the FIA, based on information provided by Mr

Stepney to Mr Coughlan.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No. What was the objection?

Nigel TOZZI

It had been suggested that the flexible rear-wing was illegal. Did you know that?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I did not know that. Flexible and illegal are two different concepts.

Nigel TOZZI

I am not suggesting that it was illegal. Indeed, the FIA, ruled that it was acceptable. I was asking

whether you knew that McLaren had raised an objection, or query.

I have tried out a flexible rear-wing, based on data in the wind tunnel. This is also a copy of the

system we think Ferrari uses. Mr de la Rosa, you do not know exactly the origin of that idea, do

you?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

I can assure you that it did not come from Mike. He never told me about aerobalance or elasticity.

We had evidence, based on sound analysis, that Ferrari was achieving higher topspin than us. We

could only assume that this was from elasticity.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 60

Nigel TOZZI

Yet you clearly thought that McLaren engineers had been copying Ferrari’s system, making you

two- to three-tenths quicker.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

In the simulator, we tried an aero-map, all theoretical, nothing physical. Based on those numbers,

we were able to achieve higher topspin. This is what I tested in the simulator. As far as I know, we

never raced with that. It was just another item tested in the simulator.

Nigel TOZZI

You pass information from Coughlan to Alonso, and also pass on details of how the tyres are

inflated, saying, “We’ll have to try it. It’s easy!” In other words, you were intending to use that

information.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes, I was interested in the CO2. It is part of the air. When I was in Malaysia, I went to our

Bridgestone engineer and asked him whether other teams had been using this. Usually, the

engineers there are able to tell you about such details, compared to other teams, having a report

after every race. I went to him because he was the person best-equipped to respond. He told me

that this had been used in the past, but with no clear result.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Alonso replied to you, and it is perfectly clear that he was interested in some of the things you

were telling him.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

He sounded interested, yes. That is one of the main reasons why I went to Bridgestone.

Nigel TOZZI

He thought it was very important to test the alternative tyre inflation technique, did he not?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

He was interested. He replied saying that we should try this, etc. This is one of the main reasons

why I went to the Bridgestone engineer.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 61

Nigel TOZZI

You came back saying, “I agree 100% that we must test it.” Yet now you are telling us that you did

not.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes. If the Bridgestone engineer had told us that this was a very interesting test – and this would

have been a surprise, as he would have told us in January – then I might have pursued. But I

realised that it was nothing.

Nigel TOZZI

You are told that Ferrari is doing this and Alonso becomes very excited about it. You talk to a

Bridgestone engineer, who says that this is not necessarily any better. You still know Ferrari is

doing it, yet you simply dropped the point?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Yes. What is wrong with that? There is so much information going in and out. We are listening

and doing things every day. That is part of work. We are always in contact with people doing

similar things. We have daily contact with our drivers. Information flows.

Nigel TOZZI

You preferred the Bridgestone engineer’s opinion, rather than what Ferrari was known to do?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

If my Bridgestone engineer tells me that this has been tested in the past and that it is not necessarily

better, then I accept that. He is the expert; I am only the driver.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us turn forward in the bundle to page 62 and the exchange of e-mails from mid-April. Mr de la

Rosa, you were very persistent about asking Mr Coughlan to give you details of the Ferrari braking

system. You were persistent because Mr Alonso wanted to know.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Not necessarily. Fernando was very interested in the CO2, when he answered back.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 62

Nigel TOZZI

At the top of page 62, you told Mr Coughlan, “Come on, explain the system, Fernando wants to

know”.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Here, I must be fair to Fernando. I was very interested in his explaining the system to me. I used

Fernando to make him give me a bit more information, if he could. It was not Fernando

Nigel TOZZI

So it was a white lie. Fernando did not want to know.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Fernando did not ask me.

Nigel TOZZI

You are saying that you persisted in asking for this information, purely as a matter of curiosity.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

Mike had told me that the double-rear master cylinder with a spring. This did not make much sense

to me. I thought that with a better explanation of this, I could grasp it. The e-mail did not clear

anything up to me, though, and that is why I never asked for more information. It was too

complicated.

Nigel TOZZI

One final point. This is the information you were receiving about pit stops. You make the point

that Raikkonen had stopped in Lap 19, rather than Lap 18. As you well know, that is simply a

consequence of his being able to use up the last reserves of petrol.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

It could be for saving fuel or for any other reason.

Nigel TOZZI

In Paragraphs 37 and 28 of your witness statement, you tell us that Coughlan also sent you a text

message, predicting when the Ferrari drivers would make their pit stops in Bahrain. You think you

passed it on to Alonso. Mr Alonso’s very short statement does not deal with this. Then you say,

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 63

“In the event that Mike’s predictions prove wholly wrong for both drivers, this made me think that

the information may not have been reliable in the first place”. Is that true, Mr de la Rosa?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

From what I recall, he gave me the stopping laps and they were wrong for both drivers.

Nigel TOZZI

Why was that? Do you remember what happened in the Bahrain Grand Prix. There was a safety

car from the first to fourth lap, was there not? Do you remember that, Mr de la Rosa?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No.

Nigel TOZZI

I am happy for everyone to check that, if they wish.

If there is a safety car on the track, then earlier predictions of pit-stops will be wrong. Do you

agree with this?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

It could be, because one would save fuel. When he told me, I did not realize this.

Nigel TOZZI

The fact that the predictions did not proved accurate in the Bahrain Grand Prix did not prove that

the information was not reliable, but that it was simply a reflection of the safety car’s being out.

Pedro DE LA ROSA

This could be. I did not recall the presence of the safety car.

Nigel TOZZI

If you were being full and frank with this Council, you would have been careful to include this in

your Witness Statement, in Paragraph 38, rather than the very misleading information that you were

being given faulty information.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 64

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No. I honestly forgot that there was a safety car in the first few laps in Bahrain. That is how

reliable Mike’s information was. That is the whole story.

This information was never that relevant to me. I have had, in the past ten days, to go into my

computers in Barcelona, Zurich, looking back to what I did six months ago. In context, events from

six months ago were nothing. We are making a mess out of all of this for nothing: whether or not

there was a safety car? I had forgotten about all of this information until the time came to find

these e-mails.

Nigel TOZZI

When you told Mr Alonso that the Ferrari information was coming from Nigel Stepney, who had

been the Chief Engineer at Ferrari, in the e-mail we have seen, did Mr Alonso say to you, “What do

you think you are doing? We should not be getting that kind of information from someone at

Ferrari? That is wholly improper.”

Pedro DE LA ROSA

No he did not.

Nigel TOZZI

He was happy to use the information as long as it was valuable, wasn’t he?

Pedro DE LA ROSA

He did not say he was happy, but I fed him all of the information. We are touching the Ferrari

information, I was sending him an e-mail after every test in the simulator, every test, to keep him

up to speed. This is only an example of the many e-mails I was exchanging. I had never

mentioned Ferrari before. This was our way of working at that stage.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you, Mr de la Rosa.

Your next witness.

Ian MILL

You have no questions.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 65

Max MOSLEY

I think they have all been asked already.

Ian MILL

Mr Dennis.

Mr Dennis, in the bundle before you, behind Tab 1, you will find your witness statement. Looking

at the final page, can you confirm that this is your signature?

Ron DENNIS

Yes, it is.

Ian MILL

Can you confirm that the evidence is true, to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Ron DENNIS

Yes, I can.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Dennis, in light of the statement provided by Mr Sutton, I would like to read a declaration by

Kimi Raikkonen to you and ask you about it: “I confirm that, during my time at McLaren, between

2002 an 2006, it was routine practice for McLaren to eavesdrop on pits to car radio transmissions of

other teams.” Do you agree with that?

Ron DENNIS

During what years?

Nigel TOZZI

Between 2002-2006, when he was your driver.

Ron DENNIS

2002-2006.

I am trying to remember the year of encryption. I think that 2002 may be possible.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 66

Nigel TOZZI

In any case, you accept exactly that which Mr Sutton describes Ferrari as doing: eavesdropping on

pits to car radio transmissions.

Ron DENNIS

At that point?

Nigel TOZZI

Don’t worry about the dates; I just want you to confirm that this is something that McLaren has

done.

Ron DENNIS

It was established practice up and down the pit.

Nigel TOZZI

Exactly.

When you carried out your initial investigation, you state that it did not cover the drivers.

Ron DENNIS

That is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

The drivers were aware, of course, that McLaren had been asked to come before the Council, on a

charge of being in breach of Article 151 of the Sporting Code.

Ron DENNIS

The drivers?

Nigel TOZZI

Yes, they must have known about that.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 67

Ron DENNIS

They heard about it after 3 July. They must have, from the newspapers.

Nigel TOZZI

Yes, and they knew that the basis for all of those allegations had been that Mike Coughlan was

receiving information that belonged to Ferrari.

Ron DENNIS

No. The 3rd July issue focused on a quantity of documents that were, as we all know, obtained by

him, copied by his wife, shredded by his wife and burned in the back garden and ultimately, seized

on the 3rd of July. Everything that emerged thereafter was focused on the possibility of the material

contaminating our company.

Nigel TOZZI

Neither Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso came to you at that time saying that there was something you

ought to know: that Mike Coughlan had been receiving information from Nigel Stepney.

Ron DENNIS

No, 100% negative. No driver approached me and, in fairness to them, I never approached them.

Nigel TOZZI

Thus, it is established that at least two people on the McLaren team who, in the course of your very

thorough investigations, did not come forward with information which I suggest was clearly

relevant.

Ron DENNIS

Three people, insofar as Lewis was and is driving the cars. I was trying to establish, through the

actions I had unstructured to be taken, whether the drawings or material from those drawings had

contaminated the McLaren system. There was no way that I could make the link between drawings

coming into the company and being looked at, or material reputedly floating around. How could I

make that link to the drivers? There was no way. It never occurred to me that the drivers could be

involved, yet clearly they were.

Nigel TOZZI

When Mr Alonso said to you, after the Hungarian Grand Prix, that he might disclose information to

the FIA, unless –

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 68

Ron DENNIS

You are wrong in your timing. The exchange between Fernando and I, with his manager present,

took place on the Sunday morning of the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Nigel TOZZI

When he came to you, saying that he had information – as you tell us, in the course of a heated

discussion – you did not carry out any further investigation to see whether there had been any truth

in what he had said.

Ron DENNIS

That is completely out of context.

Nigel TOZZI

Answer the question, then give us the context.

Ron DENNIS

I will not answer the question.

Nigel TOZZI

Very well.

Ron DENNIS

I will give you a detailed account, so that you can put the whole issue in context.

Nigel TOZZI

I am assuming that we have it in your witness statement.

Ron DENNIS

The material placed before the World Council has not been read by all of the World Council

members. Therefore, for the Members to understand, I would like to repeat what took place. That

is entirely reasonable.

First, the relationship between Fernando and myself is extremely cold. That is an understatement.

In Fernando’s mind, there is the firm belief that our policy, whereby each driver receives equal

treatment, doe not properly reflect his status as World Champion. He bases this assertion on the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 69

fact that his experience and knowledge and what came to him from his former team is such that he

should receive an advantage.

In that discussion, he was extremely upset with what had taken place the previous day, but nowhere

nearly as upset as I was. He said things that he subsequently and fully retracted. Within the

passage of material, he made a specific reference to e-mails from a McLaren engineer. When he

made this statement, I said, “Stop”. I went out, brought Mr Whitmarsh him in, and Fernando said

everything again, in front of his manager. When he had finished, I turned to Martin Whitmarsh,

asking what we should do with this particular part of the conversation. Martin said we should find

Max. After Martin and Fernando left, that is exactly what he did. I recounted the entire

conversation to Max. I was upset and angry, but mainly upset. Max calmed me down. He said

that I should do nothing. I started to calm down. Then, prior to the race, Fernando’s manager came

and said that he had lost his temper and completely retracted everything he said. When I phoned

Max, Max was understanding and said things to me that are irrelevant here, though I would be

more than comfortable sharing them. He was completely understanding and said that, on the basis

of what I told him, if he felt there was any real validity in what Fernando had said, he would

contact me prior to taking any action.

I, however, on the basis that this was an engineering matter, I asked Martin whether he thought

something was amiss in that area. He told me, “We have been too thorough in talking to the

engineers; he cannot have been telling the truth.” We subsequently had a reasonable Grand Prix.

Fernando came to me. He had come in 3rd. He apologised for the outburst and I put it down to the

heat of the moment, in which he was angry. That is how I took it. Other than following up with

Martin, the matter ended there, until 26 days later, when the drivers received a letter. What took

place between those times, I do not know. I do not know what circumstances brought that into the

public domain.

Nigel TOZZI

That is not quite right. You know what Mr Mosley said in his letter dated 6 September 2007. You

know what the explanation is: Mr Alonso apparently showed some information to someone else.

Ron DENNIS

I have not seen anything anywhere indicating who said what to whom. To this day, I do not know

how this came to Max’s attention, apart from my telling him. Only Bernie may said that he had

seen something and said he would pass it to Max. I do not know what that is. I do know that Bernie

said it was in Spanish, but I do not know how this material came to the knowledge of the FIA.

Most certainly, I advised Max of this. I am pretty sure I said to Max that there was reputedly …

Specifically in that conversation with Fernando, Martin said, “You mean, your engineer on the

car”. He said, “No, I don’t mean your engineer on the car.

Nigel TOZZI

After matters had calmed down with Mr Alonso and you were once again on speaking terms, you

did not ask him then…

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 70

Ron DENNIS

We are not on speaking terms, but that does not matter.

Nigel TOZZI

You did not ask him, in a calm and measured way, whether his suggestion that he had e-mails was

correct on the basis that, if he did have them, he should have told you about them, rather than keep

them up his sleeve. You did not have that conversation, did you?

Ron DENNIS

We have not had any conversations since that point.

Nigel TOZZI

And you did not inquire of Mr de la Rosa, whether he knew?

Ron DENNIS

Why would I talk to drivers, when the conversation with Mr Alonso was subsequently retracted in

full, through his manager. Why would I deal with that? And if I were trying to conceal something,

would I have called Max?

Nigel TOZZI

Let us put that in context. You started that conversation by saying, “We have never had this

conversation”, did you not?

Ron DENNIS

To Max?

Nigel TOZZI

Yes.

Ron DENNIS

I said, “in the strictest confidence”. I do not know that I used the phrase, “We have never had this

conversation. I am not disputing that Max’s recollection may be more accurate than mine. The

fact remains that I was speaking to the President of the FIA. Max will tell you that we have a

difficult relation. It is not a great relationship, due to various issues in the past years over which we

have had differences of opinion.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 71

To call him on the telephone and tell him what had taken place clearly indicates that there was

absolutely no effort on my part to hide what had happened. There was no such effort at all. It was

subsequently retracted and put down to one of our engineers. I had absolute confidence that the

information passed to our engineers had not been involved in it. That gave me the confidence that

he was not telling the truth. And he retracted it.

Nigel TOZZI

If Alonso had not shown the documents to Mr Ecclestone, and Mr Ecclestone had not alerted Mr

Mosley, who then wrote to the drivers, we would not have found out about these e-mails. Is that not

so?

Ron DENNIS

The simple fact is that they did not even exist, as far as I was concerned. Nothing existed, because

he said that he retracted it, that it did not happen. I phoned Max and said that he had retracted it

and calmed down.

Nigel TOZZI

Why is Mr Alonso not here?

Ron DENNIS

Mr Alonso is not here because he does not want to be here. He does not speak to anyone much. He

is a remarkable recluse for a driver. He is not here by choice. Moreover, he said he had other

things to do by previous arrangement. I cannot force him to come. We asked him to come.

Nigel TOZZI

Would it be fair to say that it would not be as supportive of McLaren’s case as your other

witnesses?

Ron DENNIS

I presume that what he has written in his statement is the truth. If our relationship is as it appears to

be, why would he make the statement? The statement is the truth. That is what statements are

about.

Nigel TOZZI

In your witness statement, Paragraph 3, Sub-paragraph 5, in the context of the investigations

carried out, you stated that you offered access to Quest. Ferrari’s experts carried out similar

searchers. You say they found nothing. They actually found that the Ferrari dossier – the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 72

documents which Coughlan had downloaded onto the CD – had been viewed by him on a computer

at McLaren’s premises.

Ron DENNIS

No.

Nigel TOZZI

Are you saying that this did not happen, Mr Dennis?

Ron DENNIS

I cannot exactly remember, but as far as I can recall, there was a reference to material having been

looked at, but they did not know what it was. As far as I know, that was consistent with what

Coughlan said. Where it happened, nobody knows, because it was on his laptop, which he took

back and forth from his home. I therefore have no clue where it happened, nor do I know what he

was looking at. It is an assumption that he could have been looking at that material. There was no

evidence that he was; that was but a shadow.

Nigel TOZZI

That was a McLaren-owned laptop, was it not?

Ron DENNIS

And it drives home in a McLaren car. Yes, at the end of the day, it was a McLaren computer. But,

like many others owned by engineers, it went backwards and forwards. We trust the engineers and

believe them to be correct people. But we cannot require them to leave their laptops at the office.

Nigel TOZZI

The computer searches carried out by both your experts and ours did not turn up the e-mail

exchanges which Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso have now disclosed.

Ron DENNIS

Nor was anything found on the computers that you held on the morning of the 3rd.

Nigel TOZZI

Thus, if there are other e-mail exchanges that have not been disclosed, it is quite likely that they

will have been missed by the computer experts as well. Is that not so?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 73

Ron DENNIS

Is that not a double-negative? How can we assume what someone did or did not do? Either it

exists or it does not. The forensic nature of those processes, as I understood, was not only very

detailed, but could reconstruct most of the material held in a computer. That is why they are

experts. They did reconstruct a great deal of material, as I understand it.

Nigel TOZZI

We can test that in this way. As you told us, on 26 July, when you came before this Council, as far

as you were concerned, the e-mails which we have now seen disclosed by Mr de la Rosa and Mr

Alonso did not exist.

Ron DENNIS

Can you say that again?

Nigel TOZZI

I am quoting you. You said that, as far as you were concerned, on the 26th of July, when you came

before this Council, the e-mails we now have did not exist.

Ron DENNIS

I had absolutely no knowledge of them. How could I? 1 300 people work for our group. How on

Earth could I know all about what moves amongst my employees? How do you expect me to know

that? I certainly did not know anything about the e-mails moving between our drivers.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Dennis, I agree with you. This puts into context any categorical assurances, however.

Ron DENNIS

You can only give categorical assurance about knowledge: what you do know, not about what you

do not know.

Nigel TOZZI

Thank you, sir.

Max MOSLEY

Do you want to ask Mr Dennis further questions?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 74

Ian MILL

No.

Max MOSLEY

That is all, then, as far as Ron is concerned.

Then, we have reached the stage of –

Nigel TOZZI

I have Dr BRAUN here. I think that Mr Lewis and Mr Taylor are here, as well, if the Council is

willing to hear them.

Ian MILL

Of course, they are here to assists.

Nigel TOZZI

Sir, I am reminded that Mr Neale may still be here. I do not know whether you want to hear from

him further. You will know, from our submissions, that we feel his answers have been

unsatisfactory.

Max MOSLEY

You may take up matters with him, but I do not think that we have any further questions.

Ian MILL

Of course, if the Council thinks Mr Tozzi should be allowed to question him. I would remind you,

however, that this is not a referral of your previous decision. I am not objecting, but rather stating,

so that the Council hears me before Mr Neale gives evidence.

Max MOSLEY

Mr Mill, the point is well-taken, but our objective is to reach the truth. If we can get close to that

by asking a few questions, then by all means we should.

Ian MILL

I am not objecting, but merely noting that this Council cannot be asked to reconsider its own

decision based on the evidence before it last time.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 75

Max MOSLEY

Your point is noted.

Ian MILL

Mr Lewis, do you have in front of you a document that bears your signature on its second page?

Mr LEWIS

I do

Ian MILL

Is this your evidence to the World Motor Sport Council?

Mr LEWIS

Yes, it is.

Ian MILL

Can you confirm that the contents of it are true to the best of your belief and knowledge?

Mr LEWIS

They are.

Ian MILL

Thank you.

Nigel TOZZI

In Paragraph 3 of your Witness Statement, you tell us that were assigned to this project in early

April 2007, describing it as “not a particularly difficult task”. However, you specify that you did

not complete it until June 2007. Thus, although not a particularly difficult task, it appears to have

taken you the better part of three months to complete it.

Mr LEWIS

There was a reasonable amount of work involved. It was not difficult, but there was a lot of it.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 76

Nigel TOZZI

Throughout that period, you were in regular contact with Mike Coughlan and reported to him, were

you not?

Mr LEWIS

Yes, I reported to him.

Nigel TOZZI

And you were in regular contact with him?

Mr LEWIS

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

He took part in any discussions that you may have had in the course of your work, did he not?

Mr LEWIS

No, he did not take part in all of them.

Nigel TOZZI

That must be right. However, he took part in some of them.

Mr LEWIS

He took part in some of them, yes.

Nigel TOZZI

In your Paragraph 6, you say, “at no time did Mike give me any Ferrari confidential information,

or instruct me to do anything which I in any way suspected was informed by Ferrari confidential

information.” Have you seen the Ferrari information?

Mr LEWIS

No.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 77

Nigel TOZZI

So, when you had a discussion with Mr Coughlan and he suggested something, gave you an idea or

provided input, you frankly have no idea whether that is based on something that he had learned

form the Ferrari information or not.

Mr LEWIS

My task was to repackage an existing McLaren system into the 2007 car. It had no bearing. I was

simply re-packaging what we already had.

Nigel TOZZI

It was plainly more complicated than that, because you spent three months on it.

Mr LEWIS

As I said, there was a lot of work involved in re-packaging it. They are two totally different cars,

and I had to re-package them.

Nigel TOZZI

Do you agree that, in your discussions with Mr Coughlan, when he came up with ideas or

suggestions, you have no idea as to whether they came from him having read the Ferrari

information or not.

Mr LEWIS

I do not recall him coming up with any suggestions that did not involve my re-packaging existing

materials.

Nigel TOZZI

Very well. Thank you.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much.

Ian MILL

Mr Taylor, you should have in front of you a document. Can you confirm that this is your

signature, on the second page?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 78

Mr TAYLOR

Yes, it is.

Ian MILL

Does this statement represent your evidence to the Council?

Mr TAYLOR

Yes, it does.

Ian MILL

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

Mr TAYLOR

They are.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Taylor, you worked with Mr Coughlan at Ferrari, as well as at Arrows.

Mr TAYLOR

That is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

It would be fair, would it not, to say that you are old friends.

Mr TAYLOR

Yes, it would.

Nigel TOZZI

Have you been in touch with him since the search conducted by Ferrari on 3rd of July.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 79

Mr TAYLOR

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

I will now show you a document for which confidentiality has been claimed. However, I want you

to look at it because I want to ask you a question. I will have my learned friend look at it as well.

It is the exhibit to Professor Gentor’s report: the hand-penned drawing that Mr Stepney is said to

have given to Mr Coughlan when he was in Barcelona.

Max MOSLEY

Mr Tozzi, is that this one?

Nigel TOZZI

Yes.

Mr Taylor, you know what this is, do you not? You can recognise it for what it is?

As we understand it, this is the copy of the drawing that Mr Coughlan showed to you. Looking at

it now, even briefly, you can see that there are two differences to any brake system on which you

worked while at Ferrari: a lever to adjust the brake balance and a means to pre-load the bar.

Ian MILL

Before the witness answers the question, I think Mr Tozzi has made an assumption, which we

should first check to be correct. The first question is: was this the document that Mr Taylor recalls

Mr Coughlan’s showing to him. It may be, but I think that, logically, that should be the first step.

Nigel TOZZI

I am happy for Mr Taylor to answer my learned friend’s question.

Mr TAYLOR

No, it is not.

Nigel TOZZI

You say this is not the document, Mr Taylor?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 80

Mr TAYLOR

This is not the document that Mr Coughlan showed me.

Nigel TOZZI

What were you shown then?

Mr TAYLOR

A GA of a brake system.

Max MOSLEY

Could you help us understand what that means?

Mr TAYLOR

It was a General Arrangement drawing, of general assembly.

Nigel TOZZI

Perhaps you could hand that one back then!

What do you remember of that general arrangement drawing so that you can say, with such

certainty, that it is not the one I have just shown you.

Mr TAYLOR

It was a proper engineering drawing.

Nigel TOZZI

You mean a more detailed drawing, rather than a hand-penned drawing.

Mr TAYLOR

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

Why do you think that Mr Coughlan was showing this to you?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 81

Mr TAYLOR

The conversation as a reprise to some work I had done a decade or so at Ferrari.

Nigel TOZZI

Why was he showing it to you?

Mr TAYLOR

He was asking me to remind him of work that we had done in around 1994.

Nigel TOZZI

How long did you spend looking at that drawing with him?

Mr TAYLOR

Moments.

Nigel TOZZI

He must have shown it to you, presumably to request some sort of specific input.

Mr TAYLOR

We were discussing the systems we used in around 1994, which were hydraulically activated brake

balance systems. He asked me my opinion of what this view showed. I gave it to him.

Nigel TOZZI

Whatever the mechanical arrangement, he asked your opinion and you discussed it with him. You

did not ask him where that drawing came from? If it is a general arrangement drawing, did it not

have a little box, indicating its source and date?

Mr TAYLOR

It was a considerable reduction from the original, and thus fairly illegible, apart from the cartoonstyle

picture.

Nigel TOZZI

Did you realise that it was Ferrari system, Mr Taylor?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 82

Mr TAYLOR

I think so, yes.

Nigel TOZZI

It would have the prancing horse on it.

Mr TAYLOR

It did have a logo in the corner.

Nigel TOZZI

Yes. And you did not think to ask Mr Coughlan why he had a Ferrari drawing in his possession.

Mr TAYLOR

It was a fairly fleeting conversation, alluding to a system that I had worked on many years ago.

Nigel TOZZI

As old friends, did he not confide in you that he had been in touch with Mr Stepney?

Mr TAYLOR

When you say, “in touch”, what do you mean?

Nigel TOZZI

Did you know he had been to see him that weekend?

Mr TAYLOR

No

Nigel TOZZI

Did you know that he was in regular contact with Mr Stepney?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 83

Mr TAYLOR

What do you mean by regular contact?

Nigel TOZZI

Did you know that he was in contact with Mr Stepney during this period, from March to June

2007?

Mr TAYLOR

Yes, I assume they would have been. They are known friends. When they travelled to races, he

was very likely to bump into him.

Nigel TOZZI

You say they were known friends. According to Mr Coughlan, though, he had not spoken to Mr

Stepney for five years before March 2007.

Mr TAYLOR

You would have to ask Mike.

Nigel TOZZI

I would love to.

It is suggested that Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney were scheming to leave McLaren.

Mr TAYLOR

No.

Nigel TOZZI

You did not. Mr Coughlan did not discuss with you his desire to leave at any time?

Mr TAYLOR

No.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 84

Nigel TOZZI

Even though you and he had effectively moved teams together three times.

Mr TAYLOR

Three times?

Nigel TOZZI

Twice.

Mr TAYLOR

Yes.

Nigel TOZZI

Despite this, he never discussed that matter with you?

Nigel TOZZI

Thank you.

Ian MILL

To clarify, were you working on McLaren’s brake balance system at that time (April-May-June

2007)?

Mr TAYLOR

No.

Ian MILL

No further questions.

Max MOSLEY

We were to hear again from Mr Neale.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 85

Ian MILL

We have no further statement from Mr Neale, so I do not have to put the formalities to him.

Nigel TOZZI

Gentlemen, Mr Neale’s original statement can be found in the Exhibits, which we have attached to

our submissions behind Tab 23. It is also the original documents submitted by McLaren at the last

hearing.

Mr Neale, in Paragraph 5, you state that you became aware, from Mr Coughlan at the Australian

Grand Prix in March, that Stepney had been in contact with him, for the purpose of informing him

that Ferrari had not been in compliance with the FIA regulations. Did you ask Mr Coughlan about

the nature of those communications?

Jonathan NEALE

In a general way, I had a conversation with him. He let it be known that there had been a couple of

e-mails, but nothing specific.

Nigel TOZZI

Did you know that they were also texting and telephoning one another?

Jonathan NEALE

I was aware that they were in general communication.

Nigel TOZZI

When, in Paragraph 6, you tell us of the conversation said to have taken place with Mr Coughlan,

which resulted in your telling Mr Coughlan to cease communication with him, did you understand

this to extend to telephone and text communications, as well as e-mails?

Jonathan NEALE

Yes. It was clear to me that he was to stop communication.

Nigel TOZZI

In Paragraph 7, you state that Mr Coughlan stated to you in mid-April that, despite his attempts to

end contact, he was still receiving contact complaining about his treatment at Ferrari. Therefore,

you arranged for a firewall to be introduced. What was the nature of that contact?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 86

Jonathan NEALE

As I said in my statement, he was receiving contact from Mr Stepney, complaining about his

treatment at Ferrari. He said he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to stop that.

Nigel TOZZI

The introduction of a firewall would imply that your concern pertained more particularly to e-mail

traffic. Do you agree?

Jonathan NEALE

It was a preventive measure, but was not related to the conversations at the Australian Grand Prix.

It was a countermeasure at that time to further ensure that communications would stop.

Nigel TOZZI

Did you ever ask to see the e-mails passing between Stepney and Coughlan?

Jonathan NEALE

The only e-mail traffic of which I was aware was the whistleblowing at the Australian Grand Prix

and it was not my business to deal with that.

Nigel TOZZI

When Mr Coughlan came to you to make a point about the problem he was having – that Stepney

was contacting him – did you ask him what form that contact was taking?

Jonathan NEALE

No. I was given the impression that this was general nuisance contact. Someone he had known for

a long time, clearly in some form of discomfort, was continuing to make contact with him. I did

not see it as particularly sensational at that point.

Nigel TOZZI

Mr Coughlan regarded it as significant enough to tell you, not even his immediate superior. You

are an additional level above him. You regarded this as significant enough to install a firewall. Are

you really telling us that you did not enquire any further as to the nature of that communication.

Jonathan NEALE

Yes, that is what I say in my statement: I did not regard it as any more significant than that.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 87

Nigel TOZZI

I know you said that in your statement. I am going you a chance to tell us more now that we know

something about the extent of the contact. Would you like, now, in the light of that further

information, to tell us more?

Jonathan NEALE

No, that is my position.

Nigel TOZZI

This brings us to the visit that Coughlan paid to Barcelona. Who paid for this?

Jonathan NEALE

Initially, I think he paid for it, then reclaimed it as expenses at a later time.

Nigel TOZZI

In other words, this is a trip that McLaren paid for, made by Coughlan to meet Stepney.

Jonathan NEALE

The trip had been suggested by Mike, to cease contact with an individual whom he had known for a

long time. Insofar as it was his task to do so, on legitimate instruction, then it is not unreasonable

for an employee to be reimbursed.

Nigel TOZZI

It strikes me as odd that, to stop someone from contacting him, the best method was to fly to

Barcelona. What is wrong with sending a letter, making a telephone call or sending an e-mail?

Jonathan NEALE

As I say in my statement, previous attempts to do this had failed. At the time, given the context of

the situation, I did not regard that as particularly abnormal.

Nigel TOZZI

Did you ask for a full report from Mr Coughlan?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 88

Jonathan NEALE

No, I did not.

Nigel TOZZI

In your Witness Statement, you tell us only that Mr Coughlan told you, after the event, that Mike

Gascoyne, the Technical Director of Spyker, had been in the same restaurant as that which he had

been in with Mr Stepney.

Jonathan NEALE

Yes, that is correct.

Nigel TOZZI

So he told you nothing about the meeting at all?

Jonathan NEALE

You are leading me. In my statement last time, I told you that he had said and led me to believe, in

a cursory manner, that all contact with Stepney had stopped. I thought the matter was dealt with.

Nigel TOZZI

You do not say that in your witness statement. Coughlan had gone specifically and with the sole

purpose of telling Stepney to stop communicating. I suggest to you that one would naturally have

expected you to ask what had been said and whether Stepney was going to stop.

Jonathan NEALE

We were dealing with a nuisance factor from an employee at another organisation, whom I

furthermore regarded as erratic. It was a very busy time of year and I had a great deal to do. In that

context, I did not give it any more thought. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Nigel TOZZI

When you say that he led you to believe that there was no more communication, are you saying that

he actually told you this?

Jonathan NEALE

Yes.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 89

Nigel TOZZI

That is not in your Witness Statement. When did he tell you that?

Jonathan NEALE

During that particular transaction, when he referred to Mike Gascoyne’s being there.

Nigel TOZZI

Why did you not mention that in your witness statement? It is actually rather more important than

Mike Gascoyne’s presence.

Jonathan NEALE

At the time, this was my position. I went under questioning from various members of the World

Motor Sport Council last time on this, and made it absolutely clear that Mike had stopped the

communication.

Nigel TOZZI.

Let us come to the meeting on 25 May.

We have read your statement and see what you say. I suspect that most of us have read the

transcript from the last meeting. Mr Neale, what did you think that Mr Coughlan was trying to

show you at the end of that meeting?

Jonathan NEALE

Again, I covered that with the World Motor Sport Council last time. I think he was trying to make

a pitch for resources to spend on mock-up technology. There was nothing else that he would have

wanted to talked about with any relevance. That is, however, speculation.

Nigel TOZZI

You tell us, in your statement, Paragraph 10, that he took two multi-coloured pictures out of his

bag, which he quickly showed you. You thus knew that this was not an offer from a rival

organisation, but something different.

Jonathan NEALE

That is self-evident.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 90

Nigel TOZZI

Yet you immediately said you did not want to look at it. Why not?

Jonathan NEALE

It was not pertinent to the reason why we were there. I did not regard it as important. I had spent

an hour and a half with him, on a Friday morning, over breakfast, settling down an employee whom

I thought was giving a cry for help and who wanted to leave the organisation. These were lowlevel

concerns. It was not an issue.

Nigel TOZZI

It was in issue: here, an employee wanted to show you something in strict confidence. He pulled it

from his bag, and you immediately recoiled from it, told him that you did not want to know and

advised him to destroy it.

Jonathan NEALE

I don’t think I said “recoil” anywhere.

Nigel TOZZI

I said it. You did not want to know, and told him he ought to destroy it.

Jonathan NEALE

You are putting words in my mouth. I told him that, if this was something that he should not have,

he should destroy it. I was closing the incident down, having spent 90 minutes discussing the

primary reason fro being there. With the benefit of hindsight, there are many questions I might

have asked. As I also say in my statement, at no point did Mr Coughlan reveal that he had

documents belonging to Ferrari, or that these pictures had come from Stepney.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us stay with what you thought it was. You say that “if” it was something that he should not

have, then he should destroy it. You are his employer, his superior. If he has something that he

should not have, surely it is your duty to question him sharply about what he has and what is going

on.

Jonathan NEALE

Again, you are leading me. I regarded the matter as a low-level issue. I did not think it was

significant at all. Nothing on there would have drawn my attention to any team, specifically.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 91

Nigel TOZZI

Why did you think it was something he should not have?

Jonathan NEALE

I think we covered this ground at the last World Motor Sport Council, where the same question was

put to me: the way in which he produced the document, prefacing the subject with “I want to show

you something in strict confidence” naturally alerted me.

Nigel TOZZI

You said, “If my suspicions were correct, he should immediately destroy them”. What suspicions

were those?

Jonathan NEALE

It was a general statement. I had no specific allegations. However, by the way in which he

produced it, there appeared to be something confidential. I did not want to go into the

conversation. I did no think that what I was looking for was particularly grave.

Nigel TOZZI

Let us step back and look at the situation. In March, you became aware that Mr Coughlan had been

receiving Ferrari information from Mr Stepney. Through April, you are told by Mr Coughlan that

Mr Stepney is still contacting him and trying to pass him information. In May, you meet him and

he suddenly produces from his bag documents which you obviously regard as suspicious because

you immediately tell him that if they are not McLaren documents, he should not have them, you did

not want to see them and that he should destroy them. Where did you think they had come from, if

not from Stepney.

Jonathan NEALE

I think I have covered this. There are several questions and allusions in your question. As to where

I thought the documents had come from, I did not know. You are also misleading the World Motor

Sport Council when you make three events, separated by one month at the beginning of a busy

racing season, appear to have occurred in close succession. This was, moreover, not the main focus

and worry of my business. Now, with the benefit of hindsight and what we know now about the

communication, we can wonder at all types of things.

Nigel TOZZI

It is not me who is trying to mislead the World Motor Sport Council. I suggest that, in reality, you

knew that in Coughlan’s bag were documents he had secured from Stepney. Instead of doing the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 92

right thing – immediately investigating it so that the matter was brought out into the open and dealt

with properly – you turned a blind eye, by telling him that you did not want to know.

Jonathan NEALE

Mr President, I think this is offensive and misleading.

Nigel TOZZI

What is offensive about this?

You are told, in terms, that he wants to show you something in strict confidence, and you turned a

blind eye.

Jonathan NEALE

Those are your words, and not mine.

Nigel TOZZI

Actually, they are the President’s word from the last occasion.

Jonathan NEALE

We discussed this the last time.

Nigel TOZZI

Yes, and he said that this was an inference, but not one that you thought was right. I am suggesting

that it is exactly the right inference, is it not?

Jonathan NEALE

I will not be badgered into changing my position, nor will I mislead the World Motor Sport

Council.

Nigel TOZZI

I asked for you to be called, because I am going to say that you quite intentionally turned a blind

eye. I asked for you to be called so that you could have the opportunity to answer those questions.

This has now been the case.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 93

Jonathan NEALE

What I have said may be inconvenient to the point you are trying to make, but I have told you the

truth. I want the World Motor Sport Council to be quite clear on that. You will find that what I am

saying is entirely consistent with what Mike Coughlan has said, what I have stated and what I

testified when I was here last.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much, Mr Neale.

Nigel TOZZI

Dr BRAUN, now.

Max MOSLEY

I am fearful that we are not able see all the witnesses before a few people must leave for flights.

Nigel TOZZI

Dr Braun, could you please go to the last page of your witness statement. Can you confirm that this

is your signature, on the last page?

Dr BRAUN

Yes it is.

Nigel TOZZI

I have one very short question I wish to ask of you. This statement was made on 28 August 2007.

This was before any of us had seen the e-mails that Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso have disclosed.

Have you seen those e-mails?

Dr BRAUN

Yes, I have.

Nigel TOZZI

Is the information in them information that you would have regarded as significant, in your

position?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 94

Dr BRAUN

It reinforces my opinion, as stated in the last page, particularly information such as weight

distribution, aerodynamic balance, the type of gas used to fill tyres, etc. All of this is strategically

critical information.

Ian MILL

Dr Braun, have you ever worked for McLaren?

Dr BRAUN

I have not.

Ian MILL

Has anyone from McLaren, at any time, told you what the role of Mr Coughlan was?

Dr BRAUN

Yes.

Ian MILL

Who was this?

Dr BRAUN

I interviewed Michael Coughlan at the end of 2005, for a position at Ferrari.

Ian MILL

Thus, your evidence in Paragraph 5 of your statement, where you say that the precise role of a

Chief Designer might vary from team to team, adding that you have knowledge of Mr Coughlan’s

career, you were saying this in part because of your interview with him.

Dr BRAUN

Yes. Mr Coughlan worked for me for a short period at Ferrari.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 95

Ian MILL

Indeed. Then you state: “However, whatever the detailed structure of a team’s engineering

division, it’s Chief Designers role would include the following.” I had understood that to be not an

account of what M Coughlan told you, but rather intelligent speculation and experience. Which is

it?

Dr BRAUN

It is a combination: primarily my experience of the role of people with Mr Coughlan’s seniority in

a racing team.

Ian MILL

Is there any reason that you did not include in your statement the fact that you had interviewed Mr

Coughlan and obtained information of this nature from him?

Dr BRAUN

No, until you asked me the question.

Ian MILL

Have you read Mr Lowe’s statement, in which he comments on Paragraph 5 and explains Mr

Coughlan’s actual role?

Dr BRAUN

I have read it, yes.

Ian MILL

Presumably, you have no reason to doubt what Mr Lowe has told the Council about this?

Dr BRAUN

We are in agreement on a number of points. We do disagree on some points. I think that Mr

Lowe’s statements here and his testimony at the original hearing converge with my opinion that Mr

Coughlan would have had some input in the ideas for McLaren’s Formula 1 car.

Ian MILL

Thank you; that was not quite the question I asked. I asked whether you have any reason to doubt

the accuracy of Mr Lowe’s statements regarding Mr Coughlan’s role.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 96

Dr BRAUN

I don’t agree with it, no.

Ian MILL

You do not agree with it.

Dr BRAUN

With portions of it, no.

Ian MILL

Are you suggesting to the Council that Mr Lowe is mistaken about what the Chief Designer at

McLaren is doing or that he is trying to mislead the Council.

Dr BRAUN

My opinion is that Mr Coughlan would have more input into the car. Mr Lowe paints a picture of

under-the-door engineering, as though a door separated Mr Coughlan from the people with ideas,

and information is passed under that to be approved. Mr Coughlan deals with them, turns them into

a car and passes them back again. I have never seen an arrangement like that work, so I do not

agree with Mr Lowe’s representation.

Ian MILL

You are thus suggesting to the World Motor Sport Council that Mr Lowe is not telling the truth.

Dr BRAUN

I would not agree that someone of Mr Coughlan’s seniority would do that, based partly on what Mr

Coughlan told me, partly based on Mr Lowe’s first statements to this hearing, where he comments

that Mr Coughlan contributes to the idea pool and is free to make suggestions.

Ian MILL

I will not ask the same question again. I will move on.

You go on, in Paragraph 7, to make informed speculation about the way in which a Formula 1 team

might benefit from access to rivals’ confidential information. Mr Lowe has dealt with that in terms,

in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his Witness Statement. Have you read Mr Lowe’s response to your

Paragraph 7?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 97

Dr BRAUN

Yes, I have.

Ian MILL

Do you accept that what Mr Lowe says is the position, and should be given more weight by this

Council than your supposition?

Nigel TOZZI

That is not evidence; it is a comment, a submission.

Ian MILL

I will put it differently: having read Mr Lowe’s answer, do you accept what he says?

Dr BRAUN

I do not, because Mr Lowe makes reference to the 2006 and 2007 Bridgestone tyres, commenting

that the latter were not the same as the 2006 ones, thus inferring that Ferrari could have gained

advantage. In fact, the 2007 Bridgestone tyres were based on the 2005 Bridgestone tyres.

Bridgestone produced a tyre in 2006 which was very difficult for them to manufacture. Thus, they

took a step back, technologically. The 2005 tyre and the 2007 tyre were very similar, so I do not

agree with Mr Lowe’s comments about the tyre situation.

Ian MILL

Do you have any other comments?

Dr BRAUN

I stand by my comments.

Ian MILL

I know that you have left Ferrari to take a break from motor racing. Are you planning to return to

motor racing?

Dr BRAUN

I am currently in discussion with Ferrari about that possibility.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 98

Ian MILL

Thank you very much indeed.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much.

Are there any further witnesses?

Nigel TOZZI

My witnesses are here if anyone wants to question them. I personally do not need them to repeat

what is already in their witness statements.

Max MOSLEY

We do not. Do you, Mr Mill?

Let us go straight into the final submissions, then. The schedule calls for 10 minutes for Ferrari and

20 minutes for McLaren. If you are able to do so more quickly, it would be to everyone’s

advantage, but I did not want to put either of you under pressure.

Nigel TOZZI

I will be as quick as possible.

I will pick up on a few points that Mr Mill made in his presentation and give you bullet point

responses.

First, Mr Mill suggested, on a number of occasions, that this was a trial in which there is to be

“conviction of use”, one in which each and every McLaren witness must be convicted of lying, in

short, one where a very high threshold that must be crossed. With the greatest respect, this is not

what this hearing is about at all. May I remind you of a point I made at the outset of my

submissions. This is an investigation if a charge that McLaren is in breach of Article 151c. That is

all. You do not have to convict them of usage. That word does not appear in the wording of

Article 151c. I urge you not to be seduced into thinking that there is some harder and higher test

than that contained in the Article. The matter is simply to determine whether there has been

conduct prejudicial to motor sport.

Secondly, it was suggested that the burden should be beyond all reasonable doubt; in other words,

if you have any reasonable doubt whatsoever, then you should acquit McLaren. First of all, there is

no question of acquitting McLaren. You have already found them in breach of Article 151c. The

purpose of this hearing is not to revisit that decision, but to determine whether that breach was

rather more serious that you were led to believe on the last occasion. We suggest that the further

evidence that has now come to light plainly demonstrates that it is more serious.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 99

Thirdly, great emphasis was placed on the document signed by the 140 engineers at McLaren. I do

not want to belittle or deride that document. I am sure that they are all very loyal to McLaren and

are all honest men. The point is, as your President said, that they simply do not know. They do not

know whether ideas have come from Coughlan’s use of the Ferrari documents, or the Ferrari

information plainly being fed to him by Stepney.

You do know, in contrast, that the accounts given my Mr Coughlan are untrue. In the UK

proceedings, Mr Coughlan has given an account that did not tell that court anything about all of the

SMS texts and other communications that were going on between him and Mr Stepney. You know

that you cannot trust what he says, when he says he does not use that information. Use your

common sense, then: Is this man, in possession of those documents, obviously having read them,

really not going to use them? Mr Lowe’s suggestion, furthermore, that those documents really are

of no use at all, does give us grounds to attack the objectivity and credibility of Mr Lowe. He is

here to “fight McLaren’s corner”. He is not an objective witness in any true sense of that word. He

is a McLaren representative, through and through, and has come here to fight their cause.

It was also suggested to you that, in some terms, you are “functus” and cannot revisit issues that

you have already decided. You have decided that McLaren is in breach of Article 151c. You are

perfectly entitled to revisit, for instance, the role of Mr Neale in light of the further information that

has come tot light since then. For example, you did not know about the exchange of information

between Mr Coughlan and Mr Stepney, which is said to be one of the reasons why Mr Neale

introduced a firewall. You might have expected Mr Neale to explore this a bit further. The idea

that you are functus in that you cannot revisit those issues, is simply wrong.

With regard to the computer investigation, there were rightly serious restrictions as to what

McLaren could look at on Ferrari’s computers. That will come as a surprise to no one. Secondly,

we do not know what we are looking for. The e-mails that have come from de la Rosa and Alonso

are interesting, in that they were not unturned by any of the investigations thus far. The idea that,

because a computer investigation has taken place, all of the relevant information has been unturned,

is frankly naïve. That there may be other smoking guns present was not picked up during the

investigation.

I conclude with this. We suggest that the evidence before you now shows that the problems in

McLaren did not have only to do with Mr Coughlan, though he held a very senior position there.

We now know that McLaren was infected in all sorts of other areas, by knowledge either of the fact

that Coughlan was receiving this information, or quite possibly by use. That is sufficient, in our

submission, to impose a severe punishment, under Article 151c. Were you not to do so, that would

be a failure, effectively rendering Article 151c impotent as a clause. Sometimes, when a patient is

sick, unpleasant medicine must be administered, for it is in the best interest of the patient. That is

the position we are in today.

Max MOSLEY

Mr Mill, before you begin, may I raise a point with you in the McLaren submission?

On page 25 is a document headed “non-discrimination and transparency”. On page 27, there is

reference to the assertion that: “FIA’s undertaking to the European Commission to act in an evenhanded

way as between competitors is fundamental”.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 100

On paragraph 59, I would have a lot to say about this, but we do not have time.

Then, in paragraph 60, there are a number of “further serious concerns”. It is stated that McLaren

has been the subject of discriminatory treatment in the context of its preparation for this hearing.

Two example are listed under that. One says that McLaren has been faced with barrage of

materials and subject to a series of extremely short deadlines in what the press now routinely

describes as a “witch hunt”. Is this a point that McLaren is actually making and wants to make:

that this should be described as a witch hunt?

Ian MILL

You will forgive those in McLaren who have taken quite enough “medicine” – Mr Tozzi referred

also to a siege mentality – if they sometimes believe this to be the case. I do not know whether

there is a witch hunt and am not here to make submissions on that either way. You will forgive

those in the company if they sometimes think this is the case.

Max MOSLEY

You say that you are not here to make submissions on that, but you do. They are here in front of

us, in writing, and refer to a “witch hunt”.

Ian MILL

It says that the press refers to a witch hunt. Our point is simply that we have been met with no small

amount of new material and have had a short period of time in which to deal with it. In other

situations, not before this sporting body, a much greater period of time would have been given, and

far greater time set aside for this matter to be dealt with. We would have had the opportunity to

produce all of our evidence. We could have produced all of our engineers and done everything so

much more effectively. The FIA takes its own course as to what it believes to be a just, fair and

reasonable process. Other bodies might take a different view. All I can tell you is that we have

done the best that we can in a very difficult set of circumstances. Factually speaking, this is the

result of the deadlines imposed upon us. I am not telling you that you would have given Ferrari

four months in a similar situation. I am simply saying how we find ourselves.

Max MOSLEY

You adopted that phrase, “witch hunt”. Do you still adopt it?

Ian MILL

I am not here to support or deny. I am telling you only what my clients feel.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 101

Max MOSLEY

In the second paragraph, it says that “steps have been taken” – implying that these have been taken

by the FIA –

Ian MILL

Oh no. I am so sorry.

Max MOSLEY

This is all about the FIA and our being non-discriminatory.

Ian MILL

I am not suggesting and have no evidence to suggest that we have been subjected to particular

treatment in that respect, specifically by the FIA. What is of very great concern to us is why we

have been treated that way in Italy by those who chose that course of action. Let me make that

absolutely clear. I am not here to suggest that you in any way orchestrated what happened in Italy.

Our concern is what happened. We think it was disgraceful and those responsible for it ought to

regret what happened.

Max MOSLEY

If you list the European Commission and the concept of non-discrimination and transparency,

Ian MILL

Will you take my apology as someone who has not had a great deal of sleep and who has done his

best to produce a document for this body, in the time available to him.

Max MOSLEY

Enough said.

Ian MILL

May I make my submissions?

Max MOSLEY

Yes.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 102

Ian MILL

Thank you.

Gentleman I would like to remind you of the decision on the last occasion.

“It is the unanimous view of the World Council that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes were in

possession of Ferrari secrets or Ferrari information, by virtue of Mr Coughlan’s possession

thereof, irrespective of certain other elements. We therefore find Vodafone McLaren Mercedes in

breach of Article 151c. However, the evidence of any use of this material in a manner calculated to

interfere with the Formula 1 World Championship is insufficient for us to impose any penalty.

Should, in the future, evidence emerge showing that the Formula 1 World Championship was

prejudiced in any way by the possession of this information by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, either

in 2007 or 2008, we reserve the right to invite the team back in front of the World Council, where

they would be faced with the possibility of exclusion.”

Subsequently, the President wrote, “However, these suspicions did not amount to prove to the

standard that the Council felt was necessary to reject McLaren’s team principal and managing

director and convict the team of an offence so grave as to warrant, in all probability, exclusion from

the Championship. In the absence of unambiguous evidence that McLaren as a team has received

and used Ferrari information, the Council was left with McLaren’s responsibility for its employee.

Exclusion or withdrawal of points did not seem appropriate.

That was the position then and it is the position now. I started my submissions to you this morning,

with three central propositions. I will not repeat them; I hope you heard them. We stand by them,

and nothing that you have heard today, impacts on that. I did not hear Mr Tozzi say otherwise in his

submissions. There is no evidence of use. There is no evidence of prejudice to the Formula 1

World Championship by the events that have occurred. I ask you to accept the evidence that is

being tendered by a series of witnesses of truth who have come forward here, on behalf of

McLaren, and whose evidence has not been shaken by questioning today, not under the gentle guise

of the President on this occasion, but through cross-examination from extremely-experienced

leading counsel in England.

With the greatest of respect, the question is not: can McLaren prove that it has not used Ferrari’s

confidential information, but rather the opposite. Is it established, to the standard that the President

himself suggested was appropriate, and that is a very high standard indeed, that we did use the

information? Of course not. How can it? We are left with the suspicion that the President has,

based on the slightly theatrical run-through of those pages, as he stood up and showed everyone the

two files. The suspicion that there is probably something in there. Fine. Then the response is not

bring us back here, let alone throw us out of the championships. Rather, you bring in Mr Whiting.

We have issued an invitation, and it remains on the table. Do not draw conclusions against us. Tell

Charlie Whiting to go into McLaren to go into the organisation and not return until, having checked

it from top to bottom, he is satisfied that no use has occurred. That has not happened; I don’t know

why. I do, however, know that if you convict us today without the FIA having done that, that will

be the grossest misjustice in my professional experience.

[The World Council Members debate behind closed doors, from 16:45 to 17:10.]

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 103

III. Meeting Conclusion

1. Submissions Regarding Sanctions

Max MOSLEY

Mr Mill, we are minded to impose a penalty. Therefore, I invite you to make any comments

regarding that. Furthermore, as any penalty we may imposes will impact on Lewis Hamilton, we

will also invite his counsel to speak.

Ian MILL

With the greatest of respect, how am I possibly to make any submissions on sanctions when you

have not told me what your factual findings are.

Max MOSLEY

I beg your pardon? When we have not told you –

Ian MILL

You have not told us the factual findings.

Let us take a criminal case: someone is charged with murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm

or actual bodily harm. The counsel representing the defendant cannot be asked for his submissions

on sanctions without specifying of what charge the defendant has been found guilty. Am I to

assume that you will find there was actual use? Will you tell me what criticisms you wish to make?

I cannot make submissions in a vacuum.

Secondly, I am grateful for the indication that Mr Phillips can speak, but if you are minded to

impose a very serious sanction, then I would suggest that you hear not just from me – and indeed I

may not be the best person to hear from – but also a statement from Mr Dennis and Mr Norbert

Haug. In justice, I would like you to hear what they have to say. Again however, unless and until

we know precisely what you are going to so, in particular on liability, I don’t know what to say to

you.

Max MOSLEY

We will issue a reasoned decision, setting out our reasons for finding you, as already indicated, in

breach of Article 151c. We will set them out in some detail, for we think this is the right, proper

and fair thing to do. If you wish, you may wait for this to be ready, then make your submissions.

We planned to listen to whatever you had to say, then tell you the decision – the actual finding –

then issue the reasoned decision. If you wish to do so in a different order, we are happy to do so.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 104

Ian MILL

Subject to instructions, how can I assist you? There are so many different possible decisions that

you could have reached: we think that Mr Neale should not have turned a blind eye, being a

manager, and thus should be penalised.

Max MOSLEY

This is such a waste of time

Ian MILL

Or, at the other extreme, you may deem that the McLaren is riddled with Ferrari information. I will

not help you if I make a submission about one end of the spectrum if you are not even considering

that.

Max MOSLEY

In our last decision, we said that, if evidence emerged and if we thought, at a further hearing, that

McLaren had made use of Ferrari information and disseminated in McLaren, you would potentially

face exclusion in 2007-2008. I would have thought it was fairly straightforward for you to start

from that position, subject to whatever you may say, then say what you wish to say, at which point

we will consider that. If Mr Dennis or Mr Haug wish to say something, our patience is unlimited.

That seems the sensible approach. If you are not happy with that, we will put together our reasoned

judgement, you can wait the 1-2 hours required and we will read it to you. I would have thought,

based on what was said last time, that it would be straightforward for you, as well as Mr Dennis

and Mr Haug, to make representations on that. However, if you do not wish to, that is fine.

Ian MILL

Since I understand that the desirable course is to hear from me now, in what I maintain is an

unfortunate vacuum. On behalf of McLaren, we would invite you not to exclude McLaren, either

from this championship or next year’s championship, for a number of reasons. In the first place,

we simply cannot accept that our car is or that our car in the future will be infected with

confidential information from Ferrari. In those circumstances, to eject us from the Championship

would be completely disproportionate.

Secondly, we would ask you to accept the information from our witnesses, even if you think there

is any possibility that you will find that the information has been used. We have not come here to

mislead you and try to deny what has occurred. Therefore, do not remove us from the

Championship, for that would simply be far too harsh a result. There are comments that others can

make better than I can about the impact on the Championship of our exclusion. It would be, in the

lowest terms, very very unfortunate. It is a great Championship this year and next year’s may be

equally great. If we are not present, it would potentially do great damage to the sport, for those

who participate in it and those who watch it. We want to be there and, if there is any way we can

be there, then we will do it.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 105

Find a way to keep us in there, please. I am not going to make submissions to draw any distinction

between the Manufacturers’ and Drivers’ Championships. If anyone should, that would be Mr

Phillips. I want, if we are indeed in the cataclysmic situation to which you alluded, you to hear the

words of Mr Dennis and Mr Haug, on how they feel about this, from the heart.

Ron DENNIS

I will go first.

I am known to ramble, so I will try to keep this as short and unemotional as possible. I have

dedicated my life to motor sport. Every team principal has written or spoken to me about the

process and situation I am in. I am not in the situation by choice or design, but because of the

actions of one rogue employee. Everybody knows that is a fact. I don’t think that anyone doubts

that what took place was between two individuals, who acted independently of their companies.

Both did incredibly stupid things that have involved their companies in such an unbelievable mess

that it is just hard to believe that something so huge could have manifested itself out of that mess.

I believe that nobody, not even Ferrari, thinks that any part of our car is the result of their design

work or anything. I know they are upset and that they even feel that we should be severely

punished. However, punishing 1 300 people and my lifetime’s work for the action of one

individual is extremely severe.

I understand that you could say that I am responsible, because I am the boss. That would, again, be

severe, because it is impossible for me to take responsibility for the actions of everyone, especially

when those actions are in homes and when individuals are communicating with friends, etc. Again,

I had no knowledge of anything. I have spoken the truth throughout this. I made phone calls to the

FIA and Ferrari as and when information became available. I compromised myself, Max, by

calling you in Hungary, but I told the truth. Anything you choose against the company will be

severe, even if it is only guilt of employing a rogue employee. If there is a punishment, let it fit the

crime.

Max MOSLEY

Thank you very much, Ron.

Norbert HAUG

I have followed the evidence very precisely and was kept informed of developments throughout. I

look at the findings of the World Council on 26 July and the assumptions that have emerged now.

All I can say is, please check the car for the evidence. We, at Mercedes have brought a lot to the

sport and will try to do so into the future. If we are guilty, I would be the first to admit that we are

completely wrong and would take the consequences. For us to be fair is even more important than

taking part in races, and our track record attests to this. We are speaking to a second team now; as

you know, there are other issues in Formula 1 now.

This is not a threat; this comes from my heart.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 106

I would like to ask you to reconsider the situation, looking at what it means for a manufacturer to

be thrown out. We hold 25% of television time worldwide, 150 more (as Bernie could tell you).

We are contributing and doing a better job in all countries. I think it is important that we have the

chance to compete. Being thrown out would cause a great deal of reaction and damage. We ask

that you take this into consideration and keep in mind what speaks for Mercedes Benz. I cannot see

that we did not behave in a correct way.

Ian MILL

The economic effect on McLaren on itself has not been specifically mentioned here, but the human

effect will be devastating.

Where the business is concerned, Mr Ecclestone will be able to tell you the precise figures. Suffice

it to say that exclusion for this year and next would give rise to extraordinary losses in revenue

under the Concorde Agreement. I have seen figures. I will not articulate them, as they contain

confidential aspects, but they are very damaging indeed. That is not all. We have our sponsors, our

drivers. You will destroy McLaren if you exclude it. Please do not do that.

Max MOSLEY

Let me simply set the scene, so that there is no doubt. Were we to exclude McLaren from this

year’s championship, the FIA’s precedent in 1984 is such that, for all practical purposes, it would

be as though the team had never entered.

It follows from that the drivers’ points would disappear as well. McLaren’s drivers, however, have

received indemnity, and were told they would not be the subject of proceedings. Were we to

exclude McLaren from the 2007 Championship, the drivers would lose the points so far

accumulated, but would be free to race for whomever they pleased and their superlicense would not

be affected. This would apply as well in 2008, were McLaren to also be excluded there.

Only once in our entire history did we separate the drivers’ points from the manufacturers’ points.

It was in Brazil, in a matter related to fuel. The fuel used in the car was not in conformity with the

sample submitted. Therefore, there was an offence. It was subsequently tested and it turned out

that, had the fuel in the tanks been tested, it would have passed. Thus, the drivers were deemed to

have no conceivable benefit from that and their points were not taken away. I felt this was just, but

the decision was largely criticised by the teams and I was told we must never do this again. In this

case, if McLaren had an advantage, so did the drivers. If they were excluded, there could be no

question of the drivers’ keeping their points.

Mr Hamilton’s Counsel

Thank you for that helpful information, which is what we anticipated.

Mr President, Gentlemen and Ladies, my opening remark is that, from the length of time that Lewis

Hamilton spent giving evidence earlier today, you may think that this has very little to do with him.

However, in our respectful submission, it probably has more to do with him than with many others

involved.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 107

You have received a written statement from Lewis Hamilton and you almost heard oral evidence

from him. Every word I am about to say has been read and approved by Lewis himself. You know

that he knew absolutely nothing about Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan or any Ferrari information.

He knew nothing of the e-mail exchanges you saw between Mr de la Rosa and Mr Alonso. You

have had evidence and heard submissions from many others, and have obviously formed your

conclusions. As an informed observer, having looked at the evidence from the outside, I ask you

whether, if that information had been present at the last hearing, would you now be thinking as you

are, or whether your thought process has been affected by the fact that those particular e-mails were

not identified at the time and have emerged subsequently. I leave you with that thought.

You decided, on 26 July that McLaren was in breach of the rules because Mr Coughlan had

received the information that he did from Mr Stepney. Through Mr Tozzi, Ferrari has made it clear

that it wishes a severe penalty to be imposed on McLaren for 2007 and 2008. It is clear that, for

both of those years, they want McLaren ejected from the Formula 1 Championship. Gentlemen,

their argument is that, if you do not do that, you will send the wrong message to the public at large

and millions of motor racing fans, amongst whom I count myself. Would it end the right message

to eject McLaren from the F1 championship? Would you have done justice by doing so?

Lewis Hamilton has done nothing wrong. He has driven brilliantly and is leading the Drivers’

Championship by 3 points. If McLaren were banned from competing in the remaining races, Lewis

Hamilton would not be able to compete in the final four races. He would lose the points that he has

so brilliantly won over the last few months, to the sheer delight and excitement of millions of

ordinary motor racing fans. The same would be true in 2008: if McLaren were excluded, Lewis

Hamilton would not be able to compete in 2008 and McLaren would lose him as a driver. Perhaps

he would drive elsewhere, assuming first that he could find a seat and assuming that that was a

competitive seat. But I ask you to remember what he said in his statement: he has wanted to drive

for McLaren for all of his racing life. He has been there since he was a young boy. He has been

supported throughout his career for McLaren and wants to continue racing for McLaren.

Of course, if you do eject McLaren from the 2007 and 2008 Championships, the consequence will

be that Ferrari will certainly win this year’s championship and probably that of next year. It would

leave the Formula 1 to be decided by four races, in which one of the two top teams, if not the top

team, would not be competing. It would be an absolute disaster for Formula 1. The public would

lose all confidence in the sport that we all love. It would also be a disaster for Ferrari. As a thirdparty

and avid motor sport fan, it begs disbelief that Ferrari could seriously want to see McLaren

ejected. Their victories would be as hollow as the ones we saw in Indianapolis 2005. We

respectfully suspect and suggest that racers like Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa would feel

cheated if they were to win the World Championship after their two main rivals had been thrown

out.

The following is critical. As a punishment for what has happened, and putting aside the timetable

of how it came out, it would not be fair or proportionate, based on the core material alone, to eject

McLaren. You may therefore decide that you should deduct points. Of course, that will give rise

to the question: whose points should you consider deducting? Lewis Hamilton has done nothing

wrong and has won his points by driving. One remembers his passing move on Kimi Raikkonen

and respectfully suggest that it would be a travesty to penalise him. We do not ask that any

different treatment be given team-mate and chief competitor in this year’s Formula 1

Championship, Fernando Alonso.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 108

As for the teams’ points in the Manufacturers’ Championship, we would leave it to McLaren to

justify why those should be retained. However, we would observe that stripping McLaren of the

manufacturers’ points, leaving Ferrari to win that championship in the most hollow of victories.

Gentlemen, when you come to consider what is fair proportionate and just, we invite you to have in

mind that the world wants to see the world’s top drivers competing on-track for the World

Championship. They do not want to see it decided by lawyers. We respectfully invite you to leave

the World Championship alone. Where Lewis Hamilton is concerned, let him get back to the track,

to become the first rookie world champion in Formula 1 history.

Max MOSLEY

As a motor sport fan, you will be aware that, time and time again, in Formula 1 and other forms of

racing, there have been small infringements of the technical regulations. One of our principles, as

in all other sports, we do not look at whether there was an advantage: a slightly-higher wing or a

slightly-lower weight means exclusion. In such cases, the driver can say that he did not know, that

it was not his fault or that it made no difference to his performance. In this case, it appears that

information has been circulating at McLaren that was very likely to have an impact on the

performance of the car. It is very difficult to see how we can let that happen without its’ impacting

the Championship.

How could I look Raikkonen in the eye and tell him that other drivers, benefiting not only from

their own manufacturer’s technology, but also that of Ferrari. He would say that this is indeed very

unfair. In this area, we have a problem. What you said is entirely right. We have to take the

longer view and consider the credibility and legitimacy of our championships. If we allow

wholesale transfer of information from one team to another, without the consent of the team from

which that comes, this calls into question every issue of fairness. Sponsors, the television and the

public would conclude that Formula 1 has gone down the same road as cycling or athletics. We

must make sure that this does not happen. Unfortunately, if an athlete is given drugs without his

knowledge by his trainer, it is grossly unfair both for him, for he is not morally responsible for the

offence, and for the other athletes, who did not have the benefit of the drugs.

It is not an easy or straightforward situation. We fully understand what you said and what McLaren

has said. I am sorry for that long discourse. If you want to say any more on that, it may be helpful.

Lewis Hamilton’s Counsel

If there had indeed been wholesale transfer of technology from one team to another, you are

postulating a circumstance in which you are satisfied that the car used by Driver A is a hybrid

Ferrari. Were that the case, I can well see that you would reach the point where it would be

justified to exercise the most extreme sanction.

However, there is a range of sanctions, and you decision will depend on the degree to which the

Council has been satisfied that there probably has been an advantage. In my respectful submission,

the evidence of an advantage is non-existent. The evidence of a possibility of an advantage is very

weak. Against that background, you must start from the top – ejection – work through points, then

down to financial penalties. I have not mentioned the latter, but the fact of the matter is that the

McLaren business is a large and wealthy one. A very strong point can be made that the public

would understand if you considered only a financial penalty without any alteration the

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 109

championship, considering that, in this context, you cannot go beyond a suspicion that there may

have been an advantage.

[World Motor Sport Council debate behind closed doors, from 17:35 to 18:40, to determine

sanctions.]

2. Council Decision

Max MOSLEY

The decision of the World Council is that, for 2007, McLaren will not be excluded from the

Championship, but will lose all of the manufacturers points scored thus far and will score no

manufacturers points for the rest of the season. They will also pay a fine of USD 100 million, less

the money lost through the removal of the 2007 points. A very considerable sum of money is lost

through the 2007 points; that will be deducted and the actual fine will be the difference between

that figure and the USD 100 million. I hope that is clear.

The Sporting Code (Article 152) provides that removal of the manufacturers’ points also entails

removal of the drivers’ points, barring exceptional circumstances. We believe that to be the case in

that the drivers were given immunity; they therefore will not lose their points. Therein lies the

exceptional circumstance. It is our belief that, without making that offer to the drivers, we would

not have received the information that we had today. The drivers may continue to score point. If

there is a podium, the drivers will go on it, but not McLaren. Furthermore, the other

manufacturers’ points remain as they are: the McLaren points gained thus far will disappear, and

the rest of the places and money will be calculated on that basis.

For 2008, with McLaren’s consent, the FIA proposes to send a technical delegation to work over

the next months, with a view to giving a report to the World Council as to whether there is any

advantage to the McLaren car for 2008, as a result of the matters discussed today. That report will

be made available to the World Council. If that report leads the World Council to believe that an

advantage has accrued to McLaren for 2008 because of what has taken place, we will invite

McLaren to make representations at the relevant World Council meeting before making any

decision. That meeting will be the December meeting, for we must give ourselves time. It is a

highly complex matter, both to be fair to McLaren and the other competitors.

We will issue a reasoned judgement – a proper account of why we reached this decision. However,

considering the late hour, I propose to issue that tomorrow, I hope by the end of the morning. You

are entitled to that.

I do not need to remind you of your right to appeal; in this case, the appeal has no suspensive

effect. However, as we are doing nothing to prevent you from running in Belgium, that does not

matter. That is the decision. Is it reasonably clear?

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 110

3. Modalities

Ron DENNIS

If your investigation conclusively proves to the FIA that there is no Ferrari technology whatsoever

in our cars, will this be taken into consideration retrospectively in the 2007 season?

Max MOSLEY

We do not have in mind to ever revisit what we have done, though you have the right to appeal.

We are very concerned, on the one side, that McLaren should not have an unfair advantage in 2008,

yet equally do not wish penalise unfairly if no such advantage exists. The flow of information this

year is such that it was improper – views vary as to how much advantage there was – not only on

the car, but also matters in running the team. We are very concerned about 2008. We do not want

to prevent you from running in 2008, but we do not want you to have an advantage that you should

not.

Ron DENNIS

However, your concern about 2008 would be eliminated at the point where the technical inspection

is completed.

Max MOSLEY

Yes. If the car is deemed 20% Ferrari, we would impose some sort of penalty on you. I do not

want to speculate about what that might be. In other sports, points deficits can be inflicted. We do

not wish to prevent you from running in 2008; we simply do not want you to enjoy an unfair

advantage.

Ron DENNIS

I know this may not be the forum, but it is easier to ask my question now, as we are face-to-face:

would you agree that the most likely point at which this sort of data would be present in the

company is now?

Max MOSLEY

Yes.

Ron DENNIS

We would like the inspection as quickly as possible, subject only to the rules of engagement, so

that we can prepare for it, the period of time, etc.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 111

Max MOSLEY

It does not actually matter. Suppose you are eliminating large amounts of information. That

information would by definition not be used on the car. It would not matter. Nevertheless, we

would like to complete this as quickly as we can, but let us not underestimate the magnitude of the

task.

Ron DENNIS

I do not fear the task at all.

Max MOSLEY

We do.

Ron DENNIS

I care only about the McLaren name. Once that inspection has been proven to be devoid of

anything that could possibly be related to Ferrari intellectual property, I would like that in the

public domain as quickly as possible.

Max MOSLEY

Let us cross that bridge when we come to it.

Ian MILL

One small – or not so small – item is the fine. You suggested that there was no need for any

suspension in relation to the appeal. It is not an inconsiderable amount of money.

Max MOSLEY

We can calculate fairly quickly the FOM figure. It would only be reasonable to give whatever

period. you deem appropriate: one month, two months....

Ian MILL

I as going to suggest the following. I am aware that we are in odd territory because we do not fall

squarely within the dispositions of the International Sporting Code. However, under Article 152, if

we were before the stewards, the lodging of a Notice of Appeal operates as a stay. The figure may

be USD 100 million or USD 80 million, but in any case, it is a very large amount of money. We

will appeal, in part with regard to the size of that fine.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 112

Max MOSLEY

Let us not lose time. The whole thing will be over before you have to pay any money.

Ian MILL

I do not accept that, unless it is put off for a long time. If we are to have a report for the December

meeting, it will form part of our appeal. We will therefore ask the ICA not to hear the matter until

the report has been provided.

Max MOSLEY

There are two completely separate decisions. One regards 2007 and if you wish to appeal it, you

have a certain timeframe within which you are required to do so.

For 2008, once the technical report is produced – and it can only be with McLaren’s consent – the

World Council will make a second decision. Perhaps I did not make this clear.

Ian MILL

Perhaps I was not clear. When that report exonerates McLaren, that will be part of our evidence in

the appeal. I am only asking that this be included in the timing of the appeal. Please make an order

that states that payment may occur within four months; if the deadline is two months, the report

will not yet exist.

Max MOSLEY

If you wish to appeal, you have every right to do so with regard to 2007. At present, we have not

taken a decision about 2008.

Ian MILL

I understand that.

Max MOSLEY

Then you should wait until there is a decision that you do not like, before appealing against the

second decision.

Ian MILL

I am not explaining myself at all well. I am sorry.

The report exonerating us will be the grounds for appealing the decision on 2007, for part of our

grounds will be that you acted prematurely: you should have conducted the inspection before you

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 113

made the decision. If the decision from the report is that there is no inclusion of confidential

information, we will use that to support our submissions that the decision was disproportionate.

That is why we will ask the ICA to delay the appeal until such time as that report is available.

Max MOSLEY

You may make any request you wish of the ICA, but I would recommend two things: first, do not

fall behind the schedule; secondly, bear in mind that they may not agree that the circumstances

were exceptional.

Ian MILL

I accept that. I am sorry we are having this lengthy debate. I am only asking that, when you set the

payment date for the fine, in order to avoid any debate over the stay of the operation, we set a time

that would take into account the point I have just made.

Ron DENNIS

I was going to suggest a constructive way forward: a Grand Prix event is scheduled this weekend,

and another three weeks thereafter, in Japan. It would be eminently practical – and I hope this will

not affect us in the racing – to avoid having the appeal between the Japanese and Chinese Grand

Prix. Could we synchronise the two processes so as to submit the report, whether accepted by the

ICA or not, so that the report does form part of our evidence. If we can complete this process prior

to Japan, we will do so. If not, could we do it afterwards?

Max MOSLEY

Are you referring to the inspection?

Ron DENNIS

I am talking about the inspection being completed and the report being ready before we go to

appeal.

Max MOSLEY

I think this is quite impractical, at least if you have any hope of winning the appeal in 2007. The

inspection, if you agree to it, will require several weeks of people poring over all sorts of

documents from McLaren, agreeing who the parties should be, etc. It is quite sensitive: on the one

side, you cannot have experts, on the other, they cannot be people who may work for your

competitor in the future. It would be a great mistake to muddle the two up. It may be that the

Appeals Court might change our decision and it would be a pity if this did not occur until the end of

the year.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 114

Ron DENNIS

We have to appeal in 48 hours. The point at which the appeal begins is up to you. I ask that you

make the appeal process effectively open after the Chinese Grand Prix. I am only looking for

practical solutions.

Max MOSLEY

You will almost certainly appeal, for one reason or another.

Ron DENNIS

To avoid the fine, for instance!

Max MOSLEY

I suggest that you write a letter when everyone is calm and relaxed, setting out your request, and

address it to the Court of Appeal. It will respond, and perhaps hold a preliminary hearing. It is not

my decision to make.

Ron DENNIS

How do we determine the process of inspection and with whom?

Max MOSLEY

We will make a proposal, to which you will have to respond. It may turn out to be less practical

than we think.

Ron DENNIS

I presume that this will involve looking at data, drawings, working practices, etc. It will obviously

be very time-consuming for my staff.

Max MOSLEY

It is so much more complex than when I was directly involved in Formula 1, that I am perhaps not

the person to ask about this.

Ron DENNIS

As this will involve a large portion of my staff, I would simply like to have an understanding so as

to be able to prepare for it.

Extraordinary Meeting Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile

Paris, 13 September 2007 115

Nigel TOZZI

I am slightly concerned and would like to have some clarification. The 2008 Inspection relates to

the 2008 car; you will not inspect the 2007 car.

Max MOSLEY

That is correct.

As I understood it, Mr Mill thought that if the inspection exonerated the 2008 car, it might be, in

some way, relevant and hence he might bring that into his appeal. That is a matter for him to

decide. There will be a 2008 decision. However, in order to make it, we will need this inspection.

Nigel TOZZI

We understood that. I was concerned that there may have been a blurring of that decision, but you

have clarified it.

Ian MILL

The decision will presumably include a time for payment of the fine, after the appeal hearing. Is

that correct?

Max MOSLEY

It would perhaps not be appropriate for me to ask you to make a proposal about that. I suggest

three months.

Ian MILL

Three months is acceptable. Thank you.

Max MOSLEY

That will take you to early December.

Torna alla Parte 1 del dossier

McLaren Formula 1 dossier multa penalizzazione Ferrari spionaggio errore