Cardiff's Complaint: Does James Bond Wear A Baseball Cap?

Well, the season just got strange. Rumours of underhand tactics and espionage have engulfed the Premier League in the last few days, with Cardiff manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer accusing Crystal Palace, and indirectly Tony Pulis, of stealing information that led to his side's embarrassing 3-0 home defeat at the hands of their then-relegation rivals. With an official complaint now hanging over the London club, this saga threatens to rumble on long into the summer, and that is the last thing football needs. I must start this with a disclaimer - below are my opinions. I have little to no facts about this case, and this piece is merely to explain my take on the story as it has emerged in the press thus far.

The last time I remember an espionage saga in sport, it took several months for an independent commission to check, double and triple check whether McLaren had stolen confidential information from their Ferrari rivals in the F1 championship in 2007. Very much like I think this will, it ended up ruining an extremely competitive season, tarring all teams with the same brush and casting a shadow of doubt on the whole sport.

However, do Crystal Palace and Tony Pulis have a case to answer? Cardiff allege that Iain Moody, Crystal Palace's sporting director, and a former director of recruitment at the Welsh club, phoned a former colleague, performance analyst Enda Barron, on 3rd April to ask if he could help him obtain the team for the match against Palace. The day before the match (4th April), Moody had apparently been able to obtain the starting line-up from another source. Though Moody and Barron directly deny any and all allegations, the evidence has begun to stack up.

Here is where Tony Pulis comes in. In a subsequent conversation between Moody and Barron, the Cardiff director was apparently overheard saying that he was 'under pressure from Pulis' to obtain the information. After this, more and more people continue to get sucked in, with Bolton boss Dougie Freedman and Cardiff player Aron Gunnarsson also playing bit-parts. Pulis has also been accused of referencing the incident in a chat between the two managers after the game, putting ever more pressure on the ex-Stoke man's shoulders.

In my opinion, there are two options over this case. Either there are too many coincidences to clear Crystal Palace and Pulis, implying that Crystal Palace could be in very serious breach of some of the FA's most important rules. However, the second option, which panders to my more cynical part, thinks that there are too many coincidences to be believable as guilt. Surely no-one can be as stupid as Cardiff are alleging, which implies an act of desperation from the Bluebirds' hierarchy to try and drag themselves out of the predicament they find themselves in.

While this latter option may seem unlikely, it is possible. As I stated, Moody discussing his scheme loudly enough to be overheard is about as idiotic as Al Qaeda making plans for their next attack in front of CCTV cameras or US presidents talking about phone tapping in a recorded conversation (that last one may not be such a good example...). Nevertheless, if we are expected to believe that this was Moody's first dip into the ocean of footballing espionage, mid-way through a season where his side were on a distinct upturn and heading away from danger, along with making several high profile and idiotic mistakes in the process, I'm not really buying it. If Moody has been doing this, he has probably been doing it for some time, which means he should be much better at covering his back than the evidence presented by Cardiff suggests.

Not that I am condoning this sort of practice. If it does occur, which I have little reason to doubt that it does, it is despicable, and brings the sport into disrepute. However, despite the old saying of 'never underestimate the stupidity of criminals', these are not stupid people being caught stealing DVDs from a shop. These are highly educated professionals, and one would expect that they would put considerably more time into the planning and execution of these actions than the allegations suggest.

However, one piece of evidence does appear particularly damning. Should it exist, the text message with the exact Cardiff first 11, which included three changes from the Bluebirds side that faced West Brom the week before, suggests that a real and genuine attempt has been made to obtain the information. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this text message is real, and that someone tried to get hold of it, but to hear about all these shady but appallingly insecure meetings makes the story less believable to me.

Despite being a City fan, I have always found Ole Gunnar Solskjaer to be a genuine bloke, and my cynical explanation is not in keeping with his character. While this makes me doubt myself, from what I have heard, Vincent Tan's character is not so squeaky clean. The way that he conducts business, particularly the sacking of Malky Mackay, has been wrong, and it would not surprise me to find that he has been responsible for the 'sexing-up' of these allegations, in order to ensure that his side remains a Premier League club (and earns a rather hefty paycheck at the end of it!). Again, I must stress these are not direct allegations (before I get a chunky lawsuit!). I would rather be painted as a fantasist and a conspiracy theorist - I am merely trying to point out a) alternative explanations and b) demonstrate the cynical way my brain works.

So does James Bond wear a baseball cap? I don't know. I have no doubt that this story will run and run for months, tainting an otherwise brilliant season. It is a practice that should never occur, and if Palace are proven to be guilty, I would want to see them punished in the highest regard. If they have been the victims of a set up, however, I would expect Cardiff to receive a correspondingly high punishment.

Jumping Through The Loophole: Mercedes Escape With A Reprimand

            In a story that has been slowly unfolding over the last few weeks and months, Mercedes and Pirelli had their fates decided in the tribunal today over the alleged 'corruption' of the sport. Unlike recent F1 tribunal hearings, which have resulted in heavy penalties for alleged offences, both the German manufacturer and Pirelli have been let off with minimal penalties, and what the FIA have called a 'severe reprimand'. If we look at precedent in tribunals, McLaren Mercedes were fined a record $100 million, and excluded  from the 2007 Constructors Championship for their part in the infamous 'Spygate'. So why was the punishment for Mercedes and Pirelli so correspondingly small? This post will attempt to investigate the reasoning behind this decision, along with discussing whether process really needed to be that big of a deal.

             It is first worth reviewing the facts of the controversy. The problems came to light when Pirelli decided to use one of their allowed test sessions, immediately after the criticism of the wear of their tyres in the Spanish Grand Prix. The rules stipulate that the tyre manufacturers are allowed to participate in tyre test sessions. However, the rules also state that current cars cannot be used for the test, for fear of the tests giving the team involved an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Pirelli decided to use Mercedes, and Mercedes chose to use the current car, which is currently driven by Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton. This put them in direct contravension with the current FIA legislation, a fact that was regularly broadcast by Mercedes' rivals, mostly Red Bull and Ferrari. Eventually, the German team were charged with bringing the sport into disrepute, along with several other charges, which led, eventually, to the tribunal this week. After much talk in the press, the drawn out controversy finally reached its conclusion today, with Mercedes handed the reprimand, along with a ban on their young driver testing. A real punishment to the Germans, I think you'll agree!

              However, before we start crying that it is inherent unfair treatment against British teams, it is worth attempting to explain why the punishment from the FIA was particularly lenient, after years of being especially strict. Firstly, the idea that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Whilst it is true that the McLaren 'spygate' affair was considerably more serious than a simple testing misdemenour, and as a result, it would be fair to expect that the penalty would be more serious. However, the disparity in punishment is rather startling, especially when you consider the bare facts. In McLaren's case, it was Alex Stepney, their chief designer that was accused of the corruption, not the team as a whole. Nor was it assumed that Ron Dennis, then head of McLaren, had anything to do with the scandal. Therefore, an exclusion and a massive fine seems a touch extortionate considering it was a single 'rogue agent'. Enough for a dismissal and minor penalties for the advantage gained, perhaps?

               Another explanation for today's decision could be that the tribunal found that 'neither Pirelli or Mercedes acted in bad faith'. It would be incredibly difficult to argue that Stepney did not act in 'bad faith' if you like, as he was certainly aware of what he was doing. However, once again, there seems to be problems with this argument. The rules are not exactly ambiguous on the test problem. It clearly states that the current car cannot be used, a rule that seems fairly common sense if you ask me. And yet, both Pirelli, and especially, Mercedes, chose not to question the running of the current car on those grounds. To me, that seems suspicious at best, and at worst, they could certainly be accused of acting in 'bad faith'. I am not advocating a similarly sized penalty to the McLaren fiasco of 2007, but I am merely raising the idea that perhaps the motives were not so different, and that Mercedes can count themselves highly fortunate to have escaped without a harsher sentence.

               Regardless of the penalty, I think everyone can agree that this controversy has gone on far too long. If I look back to my Monaco Grand Prix post, I seem to remember mentioning the controversy hitting the news then. That was four weeks ago. Surely it cannot have taken that amount of time to work out what really happened at that test, as people up and down the paddock were quoting 'facts' to the camera even then. How true those facts were is debatable, but I refuse to believe that anything more than a brief examination of the data of the test would have given the FIA all they needed to know to conduct a fair and reasonable hearing. A week at most. The last real controversy regarding tyres was 'Indygate' back in 2005, where only 6 cars took to the start of the US Grand Prix after Michelin tyre failures in practice and qualifying. Despite a battering in the press, that debacle was sorted in 7 days. To suggest that, based on the ruling, a simple 'misunderstanding', required 4 weeks to decide on is, in my view, simply ridiculous.

              At least I can be thankful that this farce is now over, and we can get back to what really matters in motorsport: the racing. We have had enough bureaucratic procrastination to last us for the rest of the year. Whether it was fair or not is worth debate, but too much risks another descent into inter-team squabbling. I truly hope that this is the end of the matter, and that the FIA remember the lenient ruling when sentencing its next accused.