Comments on: Montezemolo & Theissen disagree on McLaren’s exclusion

By: Alex Andronov

Alex Andronov — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:46:29 +0000

I think quite simply Mario has a thing in his contract with BMW which expects performance improvement each year. He had said before that his plan was to be a solid 3rd place this year, challange for second place 08, be a solid second place 09 and challange for 1st place in 2010.

I think he’s just sending a message to his bosses to not count their chickens. He’s simply managing expectations.

By: Sriram

Sriram — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:43:37 +0000

Keith, I’m afraid you got it wrong. Dr.Theissen isn’t voicing concerns about the penalty dished out to McLaren being right or wrong; he means to say that his team is still only the third best in his view-eventhough the results put them as the second-as third is what they got on track.

By: Number 38

Number 38 — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:49:05 +0000

My two pence worth……I don’t think McLaren ever got to use any of the Ferrari data. They may have been in possession of it, may have been analysing it but I don’t see any evidence it was ever used. This happens everyday in regular commerce, a disgruntled employee takes data to his next employer, what’s the big deal? The cars were not found to be “illegal” in anyway and should NOT have been disqualified. The other side of the argument, if they were “illegal” then Alonso and Hamilton should NOT have been allowed compete in them. These two statements make sense, what the WMSC and FIA did makes NO sense!

By: George

George — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:16:56 +0000

I think Dr. Mario was speaking as a true sportsman, he would rather gain his laurels on track as opposed to default. After the shambles that Ron has created out of McLaren my rooting interest will now be based out of Munich as opposed to Woking.

No doubt that McLaren deserved punishment for their transgressions and to what extent may be debatable; but the wild statements from Luca and Todt have turned the prancing horse into a braying jackass. I hope to hear the same level of hyperbole directed at Renault come Thursday.

By: Dan M

Dan M — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:10:20 +0000

I take it that Montezemolo’s comments were a translation? Either in his head or on paper, I don’t think he got his point across like he wanted.

I do like the horse analogy, I must say I have to agree with it, its pretty clever, weather or not ‘the horse was doped’ofcourse.

By: alan

alan — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:16:01 +0000

I think that theissen was being diplomatic – not wanting to be dragged into this subject – the other is just a moaning italian – they want everything because they are ferrari – we should be kissing the ground they walk upon – sorry but the verdict rightly or wrongly has ben made – the sooner that this renault enquiry is completed and wont we be surprised if they are fined as much as cclaren was – we can look forward to next season – you know the more they complain the stupider they appear and the less we care

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:34:50 +0000

In the middle part of Montezemolo’s quote he is talking about the first verdict. Regarding the second verdict he has also said:

“The verdict was unacceptable. It created a precedent that allows the absurd principle whereby a jockey races with a doped horse and in the end he wins anyway.”

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:19:52 +0000

I think actually Luca may have been talking about the first verdict in that statement, where McLaren weren’t really punished but it was still acknowledged that they were guilty. He then goes on to talk about the successful appeal. At least, that’s how I read it.

By: Eric M.

Eric M. — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:09:45 +0000

True. I guess I was just expecting him to be a little more circumspect in his criticism.

By: milos

milos — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:06:58 +0000

yes, the only problem Ferrari had with the verdict was that drivers could continue …