Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchThe 2007 McLaren-Ferrari affair was decided in two stages, not one. On 26 July, the FIA World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) found McLaren in possession of confidential Ferrari information and in breach of Article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code, but imposed no penalty because the evidence then available did not show improper interference with the championship. After new evidence emerged, the WMSC reconvened on 13 September, reached a stronger finding about information circulating inside McLaren, excluded the team from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship, removed its constructors’ points, and imposed a nominal USD 100 million fine subject to a deduction for lost Formula One Management payments. The drivers’ championship points were preserved, while the question of McLaren’s 2008 car was sent for technical investigation rather than decided by an immediate 2008 exclusion.
The short answer: why there were two FIA decisions
The central fact is chronological. The FIA did not issue a single ruling that was later replaced. It issued an initial WMSC decision on 26 July 2007, then reopened the matter when new evidence came to light and issued a substantially different decision on 13 September.
Both decisions found a breach of Article 151(c), the International Sporting Code provision used in the case. The difference was the Council’s assessment of what the available evidence established. In July, it accepted that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes possessed confidential Ferrari material but said the evidence was insufficient to prove that the information had been used to interfere improperly with the championship. In September, after considering email exchanges and information about Ferrari pit-stop timing, the Council inferred that confidential information had moved beyond one individual and had been communicated within McLaren.
That second finding produced the penalties most people associate with the scandal: exclusion from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship, withdrawal of all McLaren constructors’ points, no further constructors’ scoring for the rest of the season, and the stated USD 100 million fine. The drivers’ individual points were not removed.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
- HD streaming made simple: With America’s number 1 TV streaming platform,* exploring popular apps—plus tons of free movies, shows, and live TV—is as easy as it is fun. *Based on hours streamed—Hypothesis Group
- Compact without compromises: The sleek design of Roku Streaming Stick won’t block neighboring HDMI ports, and it even powers from your TV alone, plugging into the back and staying out of sight. No wall outlet, no extra cords, no clutter.
- No more juggling remotes: Power up your TV, adjust the volume, and control your Roku device with one remote. Use your voice to quickly search, play entertainment, and more.
- Shows on the go: Take your TV to-go when traveling—without needing to log into someone else’s device.
- TV, simplified: With setup that only takes minutes, a simple-to-navigate Home Screen, and an uncluttered remote control that does all you need—Roku makes it easier to watch the TV you love.
What the FIA decided on 26 July 2007
The finding that was already established
At its 26 July meeting, the WMSC found that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information. The written decision states: “The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code.”
This was a formal finding against the team. It was not merely a statement that an employee might have received material privately. The Council treated possession by the team as a breach of the sporting code.
Why no penalty was imposed at that stage
The July Council drew a distinction between possession and championship interference. On the evidence then before it, the WMSC said it could not establish that the information had been used to the detriment of the championship or that it had produced the kind of improper competitive interference that would justify a sporting penalty.
As a result, the July decision imposed no penalty. McLaren remained in the 2007 championship with its results and points intact at that moment.
The reservation that kept the case open
The Council did not close the door permanently. Its decision reserved the possibility of returning to the matter if further evidence showed that the Ferrari information had been used to the championship’s detriment. That reservation explains how a second hearing could follow without treating the July decision as a mistake or an automatic appeal.
What changed between the July and September hearings
New evidence prompted a reconvened hearing
The September decision says that new evidence came to light after the July meeting. The WMSC therefore reconvened on 13 September. The later ruling is the authoritative statement of the final sanctions, while the July transcript records submissions made by the parties and questioning during the first hearing.
Rank #2
- Ultra-speedy streaming: Roku Ultra is 30% faster than any other Roku player, delivering a lightning-fast interface and apps that launch in a snap.
- Cinematic streaming: This TV streaming device brings the movie theater to your living room with spectacular 4K, HDR10+, and Dolby Vision picture alongside immersive Dolby Atmos audio.
- The ultimate Roku remote: The rechargeable Roku Voice Remote Pro offers backlit buttons, hands-free voice controls, and a lost remote finder.
- No more fumbling in the dark: See what you’re pressing with backlit buttons.
- Say goodbye to batteries: Keep your remote powered for months on a single charge.
Email exchanges and pit-stop information
In describing the new material, the September decision refers to email exchanges involving McLaren drivers and to information about the timing of Ferrari pit stops that Nigel Stepney’s information was communicated by Mike Coughlan to at least one McLaren driver. The Council assessed those contacts together rather than treating the matter as an isolated possession by Coughlan.
Based on the contacts and email exchanges, the WMSC said it was reasonable to infer that Coughlan received confidential Ferrari information from Stepney and that at least some of it was communicated within McLaren. That sentence is important because it describes the Council’s assessment. It should not be rewritten as though every allegation made during the affair had been independently proven in the same way.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why the evidential distinction matters
The July and September records answer different questions. The first asked whether the available material established a code breach and improper interference. The second considered additional evidence that, in the Council’s view, showed internal communication of confidential information. The change in outcome followed that change in evidential assessment.
The September 13 ruling and its sanctions
Exclusion from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship
On 13 September, the WMSC again found McLaren in breach of Article 151(c). It excluded McLaren from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship and withdrew all points awarded to the team.
The exclusion did not stop the cars from appearing at the remaining rounds. McLaren was allowed to race, but it could not score Constructors’ Championship points for the rest of the season. The team also could not attend a podium as a team. The points of other competitors were not altered by McLaren’s withdrawal.
The drivers’ points were preserved
The ruling treated the drivers separately from the team. The WMSC cited the drivers’ immunity offer and allowed them to continue scoring points in the Drivers’ Championship. They could also attend podium ceremonies as drivers.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Rank #3
- 4K streaming made simple:With America’s number 1 TV streaming platform,* exploring popular apps—plus tons of free movies, shows, and live TV—is as easy as it is fun. *Based on hours streamed—Hypothesis Group
- 4K picture quality: With Roku Streaming Stick Plus, watch your favorites with brilliant 4K picture and vivid HDR color.
- Compact without compromises: Our sleek design won’t block neighboring HDMI ports, and it even powers from your TV alone, plugging into the back and staying out of sight. No wall outlet, no extra cords, no clutter.
- No more juggling remotes: Power up your TV, adjust the volume, and control your Roku device with one remote. Use your voice to quickly search, play entertainment, and more.
- Shows on the go: Take your TV to-go when traveling—without needing to log into someone else’s device.
In practical terms, the sanction removed McLaren’s constructors’ result while leaving the individual drivers’ standings in place. That distinction is why descriptions saying that “all McLaren points” were stripped are incomplete: the withdrawn points were the team’s Constructors’ Championship points, not the drivers’ individual totals.
Max Mosley’s announcement
Announcing the decision at the September hearing, FIA President Max Mosley said: “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.”
In that statement, “manufacturers points” refers to the constructors’ side of the championship. It does not contradict the written decision’s preservation of the drivers’ points.
What the USD 100 million fine actually meant
The nominal amount
The September decision stated a USD 100 million fine, payable within three months. That is the headline figure attached to the case and the amount normally quoted in contemporary accounts.
The required deduction
The decision did not say that McLaren necessarily paid a full USD 100 million on top of every other financial consequence. It specified that the fine was reduced by any sum Formula One Management would otherwise have paid McLaren for its 2007 Constructors’ Championship results had the team not been excluded.
That deduction links the fine to the lost championship-related payment. The safest description is therefore “a nominal USD 100 million fine, less the specified Formula One Management payment deduction,” not an assertion that the entire nominal amount was paid separately from lost income.
Rank #4
- Stunning 4K and Dolby Vision streaming made simple: With America’s number 1 TV streaming platform,* exploring popular apps—plus tons of free movies, shows, and live TV—is as easy as it is fun. *Based on hours streamed—Hypothesis Group
- Breathtaking picture quality: Stunningly sharp 4K picture brings out rich detail in your entertainment with four times the resolution of HD. Watch as colors pop off your screen and enjoy lifelike clarity with Dolby Vision and HDR10+.
- Seamless streaming for any room: With Roku Streaming Stick 4K, watch your favorite entertainment on any TV in the house, even in rooms farther from your router thanks to the long-range Wi-Fi receiver.
- Shows on the go: Take your TV to-go when traveling—without needing to log into someone else’s device.
- Compact without compromises: Our sleek design won’t block neighboring HDMI ports, so you can switch from streaming to gaming with ease. Plus, it’s designed to stay hidden behind your TV, keeping wires neatly out of sight
Why headlines can mislead
A headline such as “McLaren lose 2007 points, fined $100m” captures the scale of the ruling but leaves out the deduction mechanism and the difference between constructors’ and drivers’ points. Those details are part of the decision itself, not minor accounting footnotes.
What happened to the 2008 question
An investigation, not an automatic exclusion
The September WMSC decision directed the FIA technical department to investigate whether McLaren’s preparatory work for its 2008 car incorporated confidential Ferrari information. The department was to report before the December WMSC meeting.
The September ruling did not itself exclude McLaren from the 2008 championship. It created a technical review process for the following season rather than imposing a second-season sporting penalty immediately.
What the order did and did not establish
The order established that the FIA wanted a technical assessment of the car’s preparation. It did not, by itself, establish that the 2008 car contained Ferrari-derived material, nor did it announce a 2008 championship sanction. Any account that treats the September decision as a completed 2008 exclusion goes beyond the ruling described here.
McLaren’s July defense versus the later WMSC finding
What McLaren argued in July
At the 26 July hearing, McLaren’s representative argued that Coughlan had acted privately and without the team’s authority. The representative also argued that McLaren had not used the documents. Those statements are submissions by a party to the proceeding, recorded in the July transcript.
Why those statements cannot be presented as findings
The July transcript is not a neutral verdict on every factual question. It contains advocacy, questioning and responses. Presenting McLaren’s account as though the WMSC adopted it would erase the distinction between a party’s defense and the Council’s findings.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
- The Google TV Streamer (4K) delivers your favorite entertainment quickly, easily, and personalized to you[1,2]
- HDMI 2.1 cable required (sold separately)
- See movies and TV shows from all your services right from your home screen[2]; and find new things to watch with tailored recommendations for everyone in your home based on their interests and viewing habits
- Watch live TV and access over 800 free channels from Pluto TV, Tubi, and more[3]; if you find an interesting show or movie on your TV, mobile app, or Google search, you can easily add it to your watchlist, so it’s ready when you are[2]
- Up to 4K HDR with Dolby Vision delivers captivating, true-to-life detail[4]; and you can connect speakers that support Dolby Atmos for more immersive 3D sound
How the September decision changed the factual picture
The later WMSC decision considered newly presented evidence, including the email exchanges and the pit-stop timing information. On that record, the Council inferred that confidential Ferrari material had been received from Stepney by Coughlan and that some information had been communicated within McLaren. The September ruling therefore moved beyond the July position that the evidence did not establish improper championship interference.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.July and September compared
| Issue | 26 July 2007 WMSC decision | 13 September 2007 WMSC decision |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence considered | Evidence available at the first hearing; the Council found possession but insufficient proof of improper championship interference. | New evidence, including email exchanges and Ferrari pit-stop timing information, considered with the earlier material. |
| Article 151(c) | McLaren found in breach. | McLaren again found in breach. |
| Penalty | No penalty imposed. | Exclusion from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship and a nominal USD 100 million fine, less the specified Formula One Management payment deduction. |
| Constructors’ points | Points remained in place at that stage. | All McLaren constructors’ points were withdrawn; no further constructors’ points could be scored in 2007. |
| Drivers’ points | No withdrawal ordered in the July decision. | Drivers’ individual points preserved under the immunity arrangement. |
| 2008 | No final 2008 technical ruling stated. | FIA technical department ordered to investigate the 2008 car preparations before the December WMSC meeting. |
A precise timeline of the case
- 26 July 2007: The WMSC finds Vodafone McLaren Mercedes in possession of confidential Ferrari information and in breach of Article 151(c), but imposes no penalty because the evidence then available is insufficient to show improper interference with the championship.
- After the July meeting: New evidence comes to light, including material concerning email exchanges and the communication of Ferrari pit-stop timing information.
- 13 September 2007: The WMSC reconvenes, finds McLaren in breach again, excludes the team from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship, withdraws its constructors’ points and imposes the stated fine subject to the payment deduction.
- Remaining 2007 rounds: McLaren may race, but cannot score Constructors’ Championship points or attend a podium as a team. Its drivers may continue to score Drivers’ Championship points and attend podiums.
- Before the December WMSC meeting: The FIA technical department is to report on whether McLaren’s 2008 preparatory work incorporated confidential Ferrari information.
Common misunderstandings about the FIA ruling
“The FIA changed its mind for no reason.”
The record describes a new-evidence process. The July Council expressly left open the possibility of returning if further evidence showed championship detriment. The September outcome followed the Council’s assessment of additional material.
“McLaren was banned from racing in 2007.”
It was excluded from the Constructors’ Championship, not barred from entering the remaining races. The cars could compete, but the team could not score constructors’ points or appear on the podium as a team.
“The drivers lost all their points.”
They did not. The WMSC preserved their individual standings and allowed them to continue scoring Drivers’ Championship points.
Recommended Free Tools
“The fine was simply an extra $100 million payment.”
The decision stated a nominal USD 100 million fine less the amount Formula One Management would otherwise have paid McLaren for its 2007 constructors’ results. The ruling does not support treating the full headline amount as necessarily paid in addition to that lost payment.
“The September ruling proved every detail of the original story.”
The Council’s written finding was narrower and more precise. It found possession, relied on the new contacts and emails, and said it was reasonable to infer that at least some information was communicated within McLaren. Claims beyond those findings need separate evidence.
Why the two-stage process matters
The case is a useful example of how a sporting tribunal can separate a breach from the penalty attached to it. In July, the WMSC treated possession of confidential material as a code breach but found the evidential case for championship interference insufficient for punishment. In September, the Council used additional evidence to reach a different assessment of internal communication and competitive significance.
It also shows why the categories in the decision matter. The team’s Constructors’ Championship status, its financial entitlement, the drivers’ individual standings and the future technical legality of the car were handled through different provisions. Combining them into one claim that “McLaren was stripped of everything” produces an inaccurate account.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe final position stated by the September decision is therefore specific: McLaren remained able to race in 2007, but lost its constructors’ championship points and team podium rights; its drivers retained their individual points; the team faced the stated fine with the required deduction; and the 2008 car question was referred for technical investigation rather than resolved by a 2008 exclusion in that decision.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Say something about this film