I am a little confused. Is Martin Whitmarsh telling the truth or is the McLaren attorney telling the truth? You be the judge but even Autosport is confused and has picked up on the disparity in their words and actions. McLaren seems to be unraveling in their PR efforts and Press Communications. I thought that’s what they hired Matt Bishop for?
Many, including Grace, have argued that it is principle and that McLaren have had to make a move to seek some clarification lest they be accused of rolling over on the issue of Williams and BMW running cold fuel in the final race that saw Kimi Raikkonen claim the World Driver Championship. If disqualified, Lewis Hamilton would be Champion but the McLaren pundits, including their own Martin Withmarsh, have claimed that is not what they are seeking. Perhaps this is all chest pounding and going thought he motions for law-talking-guys. Perhaps they have to go at this as if they were arguing the complete case in order to press the FIA hard and then see what the FIA renders as judgment. Fairly typical in legal circles. If the attorney were to show up and just say, “could you clarify the rules for us”, it would be of little use to force the FIA to make clear definitive standards to eliminate this issue once and for all.
So in the end, perhaps McLaren are playing hardball with the FIA and forcing them to expose prejudice, establish definitive rules moving forward or to prove incompetence. Either way, the FIA and Max Mosely will not take to this kind of bravado litigation very lightly and I assume this will not be received well in PR circles or FIA relations. Having said that, Ferrari were keen to offer their take on McLaren’s aggressive approach to this WMSC issue:
“shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity” ~Ferrari’s lawyer Nigel Tozzi