GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Dare on June 20, 2013, 01:13:42 PM
-
Is Brawn to become the sacrificial lamb
The FIA's QC says claims that Charlie Whiting gave Merc permission to test are "irrelevant" and that there was "not an agreement by the FIA."
The FIA's International Tribunal into 'Testgate' got underway in Paris on Thursday morning.
Already told by Mark Howard QC that they "may have engaged in activity that was prejudicial to the competition", the QC cut to the heart of the matter about whether or not the test was lega.
Although admitting that "informal communications" had taken place between Mercedes and the FIA, he denied that the two parties had been given the go-ahead and stated that any claims that race director Whiting had been given his permission were "irrelevant."
Howard said: "Whether or not Whiting consented, it is irrelevant, because testing in relation to Article 22 is a breach, unless it [a rule change] is granted by the World Motor Sport Council.
"Whiting was asked a general and non-specific question - the general question on the permissibility of using a 2013 car.
"His preliminary response was that such a test would comply with Article 22 providing purpose was for Pirelli to test its tyre and he would check.
"This communication was not an agreement by the FIA - it was nothing more than Whiting and Bernard's interpretation of [article] 22."
However, Merc's lawyer Paul Harris QC insists the Brackley-based squad did no wrong as the test was undertaken by Pirelli and not the Formula One team.
According to Harris, both team boss Ross Brawn and team manager Ron Meadows ascertained permission from Whiting as well as FIA lawyer Sebastien Bernard.
Harris quoted an email from Whiting, saying: "In my view any such testing would not actually be undertaken by the competitors, it would be could be argued that this was done by Pirelli. Would we be able to take this position?"
Bernard responded by saying: "Indeed we could take this position...[it is] not an undertaking from the competitor."
Harris added that Mercedes "acted in good faith throughout, conducting a test to the benefit of all Formula One participants."
-
This is almost farcical. When does 'yes' really mean 'yes', and when does it mean 'maybe'? I'll be interested to see how anyone is able to make a concrete judgement on such a subjective interpretation of language use.
-
It was established several years ago that Charlie Whiting, though he can advise, can't even lend final judgment on in-race incident blame, let alone anything else. It should not have surprised anyone at Mercedes that asking Charlie Whiting for advice did not constitute a formal permission-seeking process as required by the regulations. I'm more surprised the Tribunal didn't fully grasp this fact.