Talk:2007 Formula One espionage controversy

WMSC meeting

Here's a reference to show the jugement was unanimous: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19461.html --Don Speekingleesh 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

The highly questionable inclusion of Dennis' approach to Ferrari with intent on rapprochement suggests back-handed motives and a two-faced attitude. Is this really appropriate? This event/agreement proves nothing in relation to the subject at hand - it is circumstantial (if that even) evidence to suggest Dennis knew anything and would be inadmissible in a court of law so why is it there? What is perhaps relevant and not included is the timescale of Coughlan demanding to be released from his McLaren contract. For months before he claimed to have got the Ferrari information he was desperately trying to leave Woking (I believe grandprix.com recently published the full details of this). Now, documents found in his home, not office/resorting to sending his wife down the high street to copy them aside (have McLaren run out of filing space and can't they afford a photocopier?!), this still doesn't sound like a case of team involvement. Unless you have a vivid imagination and/or a red jacket. -- 62.25.106.209 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Years kick out

maclaren will not race in the next 2 years, see it on the bbc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.78.131 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Current BBC headline: McLaren sweat on spy row verdict. No verdict yet, I'm listening in real time... Pyrope 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, the BBC reports Bernie Ecclestone as saying McClaren were almost banned from competing in this season and next season's championships, as can be seen here. Tx17777 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent reporting, notably after the death of Max Mosley earlier this year, has Mosley wanting to ban McLaren for two years but €cc£e$tone talking him out of it and imposing the $100 million fine instead. “$5 million for the offence; 95 million for Ron (Dennis) being a cunt”, according to Mr Mosley. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Spygate?

I'm vaguely sure that I've heard of this being referred to as 'spygate', but the article has no mention of this, is it prudent to include that it may be referred to as that?

On a secondary note, which silly monkey named it spygate, they've misused the -gate suffix. Comradeash 14:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they have. It is commonly referred to as "Spygate" (see various recent editions of Autosport Magazine, specifically Fifth Column by Nigel Roebuck and F1's Inside Line by Mark Hughes, also sometimes "Stepneygate". mattbuck 14:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's actually called "Spygate" or not, but the term doesn't redirect here anymore as it's now the title of the article about the New England Patriots controversy. Pmr2011 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that the scandal was mainly called `Ferrari-gate' (by Ted Kravitz etc). See it called that in a British newspaper here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2317720/McLaren-escape-Ferrari-gate-penalty.html

Googling that term does lead to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Last Pit Garage

There's an uncited statement on here that McLaren will have the last pit garage next year. Does anyone have confirmation of this? I thought they would still be ahead of Prodrive? Kelpin 12:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Humm, I really don't know about that. They'll be next to Prodrive certainly. However, it's uncited for one reason - it's not an official FIA thing. We believe this will be true, because they'll finish last in the championship, and pit lane order is done by championship order. However, I don't know how an excluded team comes against a nonexistant team. mattbuck 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I may be getting a little bit ahead of Myself, but if Renault face a similar penalty or possesing Mclaren information as McLaren did for possesing Ferrari information (and are excluded|, who will get the last garage then?? Or will the FIA have to prove that the information was passed on/seen by other individuals in Renault?Random Jack 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the comment as it is entirely speculative. Until the FIA make a ruling there is no way of knowing how they might proceed, that much should be clear from their rather random set of decisions taken this year! Pyrope 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That comment should not have been removed, the FIA did issue a ruling placing McLaren team at the last pit Garage. Since then Ron Dennis negotiated a special dispensation with F1 Supremo Bernie Ecclestone to be placed in position 4 or 5 up the pit lane, which they used in the season opener (Australia) and in Malaysia too. By race 3 (Bahrain) FIA president Max Mosely had insisted that McLaren are placed in their last pit Garage, and indeed they were. Given the power struggle going on behind the scenes (including the Max Mosely sting / smear campaign) I wouldn't be surprised to see Max Overruled on that and Ron Dennis satisfied, eventually. Eddyholland (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Eddy, look at the date on my comment. That was made long before the FIA made the ruling so at the time I made the edit the statement was speculative. Feel free to add in confirmed, cited information that you think relevant. Pyrope 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine Money

Who is the $100million actually paid to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.86.252 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fine money is paid to a special development fund of the FIA, to be used for development of motorsport and safety. FIA grandees - including Mercedes motorsport boss Norbert Haug and (current) Ferrari boss Jean Todt - are trustees of that fund
Eddyholland (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Renault Investigation

I have marked the claim on the timeline that "15 Renault F1 employees knew of the McLaren data" as {{Fact}}. If no sources are quoted within the next few days, I will remove the information. Random Jack 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FIA to sue The Times over spygate - include?

The World Motorsport Council has "authorised the FIA to issue libel proceedings against English newspaper The Sunday Times, which ran an article claiming that the FIA was engaged in a witch-hunt against the McLaren-Mercedes team." [1] The article was written by former F1 driver and ITV commentator Martin Brundle who has reacted to the decision in his latest column.

Do you think it's worth mentioning this in the article? AlexJ (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Mighty Antar (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More related news

There are quite a few new related articles on the subject: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Sporti (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/press-releases-2007.php?article=60
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:46:21, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-27 15:03:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-06-15 13:31:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/pdf/Max-Mosley-and-WMSC-members.pdf
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:46:21, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-27 15:03:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-06-15 13:31:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.csai.aci.it/csai/DettaglioNews.do?id=1341
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-26 02:46:21, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-05-27 15:03:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 2007 Formula One espionage controversy on 2011-06-15 13:31:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulty citation

A botched first citation raises nominal concern over the rest, but I've got to get some sleep before I look at anything else.

The first citation linked to the wrong page at autosport.com. With regard to Nigel Stepney as a member of the Benetton-Ferrari "Dream Team", the right Autosport article was named (Analysis: the remarkable Stepneygate saga), but the wrong article was linked (Analysis: Ferrari see Coughlan in court) and the author corresponding to the mistakenly-linked article (Biranit Goren) was credited.

The link now points to the right article, credited to the proper author (Adam Cooper). The citation has been further adjusted to reflect the associated access date, -archive URL, and -archive date. In all likelihood, it was an isolated error but I won't chance uncovering more problems at this hour.

Patronanejo (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613133319/http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/pdf/Max-Mosley-and-WMSC-members.pdf to http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/pdf/Max-Mosley-and-WMSC-members.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive URL doesn't work, so I have reverted it and tagged with {{cbignore}}. DH85868993 (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214175714/http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/December/131207-01.html to http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/December/131207-01.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csai.aci.it/csai/DettaglioNews.do?id=1341

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705205046/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39875 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39875
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707082823/http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2466612,00.html to http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2466612,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705205046/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39875 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39875
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000757/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40222 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40222
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022060508/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/17844641__WMSC_Decision_130907.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004034002/http://www.fia.com:80/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/September/190907-01.html to http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/September/190907-01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2007 Formula One espionage controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0%2C18954%2C3213_2466612%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sport.guardian.co.uk/motorsport/story/0%2C%2C2177259%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708184404/http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39942 to http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=39942
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/September/190907-01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)

There is currently a move discussion going on at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) related to this article. You're invited to participate. R2 (bleep) 16:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

2007 Formula One espionage controversy → Spygate (Formula 1) – By and large, the common name of this scandal is Spygate. Although I appreciate that we should shy away from gating every scandal that comes along, this is one scandal where the "-gate" name stuck, even gaining usage by the official F1 website. See also: Deflategate, and also my similar move request at Talk:Renault Formula One crash controversy. Sceptre (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't have strong feelings either way about the proposed move, however I would suggest that if there is consensus for the article to be renamed, that the new name be Spygate (Formula One) rather than Spygate (Formula 1), to match the existing style used within the article. DH85868993 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I've no objection to either "1" or "One". Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not convinced that "Spygate" is the common name for this event. The current title is a perfect encyclopedic title for this event, per WP:PRECISE. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Tvx1 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  The F1 website calls it spy gate, President of the FIA at the time of the scandal, Max Mosley, refers to it as such, a 2018 BBC retrospective of Fernando Alonso's career refers to it as such, and the Telegraph called a 2015 allegation of espionage as a "new Spygate". Like it or not, ten years on, there is demonstrable usage of "Spygate" as a term to refer to this particular case of industrial espionage, and we shouldn't shy away from the commonly used name (as demonstrated in sources) just because "not everything needs a -gate suffix". Sceptre (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Spygate" isn't encyclopedic enough for me. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Painful vagueness - History being erased

I remember the case from 2007. The news about it were featured very prominently in sports news. Most sport followers learnt about it. And then, here we are seventeen years later and the facts are being covered by a shroud of doubt. This is what the article says right now: "Mike Coughlan is alleged by Ferrari to be in possession of 780 pages of Ferrari documentation, and that his wife is alleged to have taken them to a photocopying shop near Woking".

Really? Alleged? The truth that was established right then, and over which no doubt has been cast so far, was that the copyshop owner contacted Ferrari about the confidential documentation he was ordered to print. The copyshop owner himself told his story to the media. This is definitely certain, for it was the incident from which the espionage was uncovered - without this initiative from the copyshop owner, we would never have known about the espionage.

Yet the Wikipedia article is degrading the established facts to mere allegations. History being erased. Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Two things to think about: First, the section that you quote directly regards the allegations that were made at the time of the initial complaint. At this stage they were allegations, and presenting them as such in that context is correct. Second, around half the content on this page was created in July 2007, during the events under discussion and before the second FIA hearing in September of that year. So, when this stuff was written nothing had been proven either in court or by the FIA.

In short, this is not a case that 'Wikipedia' is degrading anything, it is just a quirk of the volunteer-run nature of this enterprise. If you'd like to adjust any entries please feel free to do so, and the full text of the final FIA findings is available to you if you do. Cheers. Pyrope 16:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Today I got some time to look at this. I took a look at this news:

`Police raid found Ferrari documents at McLaren designer`s home`

World Motor Sport Council Decision

'9.1 For the foregoing reasons, the WMSC finds McLaren in breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code.'

'9.3 (...) primary responsibility must rest with McLaren'

Yet the Wikipedia entry starts with this shameful pair of phrases: 'The 2007 Formula One espionage controversy, also known as Spygate and Stepneygate, was a set of accusations among Formula One racing teams that confidential technical information had been passed between them. It involved the McLaren, Ferrari and Renault F1 teams.'

Really? A 'set of accusations', af if they were never proven? It 'involved the McLaren, Ferrari and Renault F1 team', as if they were involved in the same way, putting the victims at the same level of the offenders? Look, I am not bothering to change the very first paragraph of the entry. I have been in too many edit wars, I am sick of it, and I am just not bothering to start another one over this. There is an unexhaustable stream of people willing to reject the facts no matter how much indisputable the proof is. I am just saying that this entry is a book case of whitewashing, meant to dismiss McLaren's undeniable responsibility in the espionage against Ferrari.Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)