Allow me to be a little more self-indulgent than usual for a moment, but last week I was trying to disconnect from the Formula 1 world a little bit while on my honeymoon.
The F1 calendar doesn’t really allow for proper breaks between the start of February and the end of November aside from the enforced summer shutdown. But in my case, August was ruled out by a house move and preparing for the wedding that led to the honeymoon, so I took 10 days off this month in the hope that the biggest thing I’d miss was Logan Sargeant’s confirmation at Williams.
I know, how naive I was. This is F1 after all, and there always seems to be something ready to kick off somewhere.
On this occasion, it was a touch paper lit by the FIA. Last Tuesday evening, an unprompted statement was sent around by the governing body that stated:
“The FIA is aware of media speculation centered on the allegation of information of a confidential nature being passed to an F1 team principal from a member of FOM personnel. The FIA Compliance Department is looking in to the matter.”
A number of team members messaged asking what it might be about, but it didn’t take long for a claim in a publication that it was related to Toto and Susie Wolff to be highlighted. Given the credibility of the title, that one article alone seemed insufficient to trigger an investigation, but there had been a previous suggestion of a conflict of interest in a British national newspaper — although one that, at the time, was not on good terms with the Mercedes team principal. And that earlier claim certainly didn’t include the passing “of information of a confidential nature.”
It was an odd statement, given the lack of clear need for it, but at the same time it is only fair to point out that the FIA didn’t name the Wolffs in the same way it did Lance Stroll when he was under investigation by the compliance officer following the Qatar Grand Prix weekend.
But at a time when there was little of note for anyone to focus on from an F1 news perspective — Sargeant’s seat having already been confirmed days before and no Andretti update being expected until the new year — it was always going to gain traction. The Mercedes response actually ensured it became an even bigger story.
“We note the generic statement from the FIA this evening, which responds to unsubstantiated allegations from a single media outlet, and the off-record briefing which has linked it to the team principal of Mercedes-AMG F1,” a Mercedes statement at the time read.
“The team has received no communication from the FIA Compliance Department on this topic and it was highly surprising to learn of the investigation through a media statement.
“We wholly reject the allegation in the statement and associated media coverage, which wrongly impinges on the integrity and compliance of our team principal.
“As a matter of course, we invite full, prompt, and transparent correspondence from the FIA Compliance Department regarding this investigation and its contents.”
Susie Wolff herself went far further, stating “it is disheartening that my integrity is being called into question in such a manner, especially when it seems to be rooted in intimidatory and misogynistic behavior, and focused on my marital status rather than my abilities.”
The controversy may have stemmed from a ham-fisted attempt to get at Toto Wolff, and left wife Susie taking collateral damage. Steve Etherington/Motorsport Images
The FIA insists there was no misogyny involved at all, and that it was just following its duty as F1’s regulator to follow up on representations made by at least one other team member. But then came nine identically-worded statements from the other nine teams…
“We can confirm that we have not made any complaint to the FIA regarding the allegation of information of a confidential nature being passed between an F1 team principal and a member of FOM staff,” the rest of the grid said.
“We are pleased and proud to support F1 Academy and its managing director through our commitment to sponsor an entrant in our liveries from next season.”
While those statements inadvertently named Susie via referencing the F1 Academy managing director — thus confirming who the FIA was supposedly investigating — they then showed a truly united front against the FIA. But at the same time, they also leave us in the situation where someone is definitely not telling the whole truth.
Either it’s the FIA who never received serious representations from a team, or it’s one (or more) of those teams that stated they haven’t made a complaint. That could just be careful wording of the statements to cover their backs, but supporting Susie allowed all the teams to point the finger at the FIA.
The Wolffs and Mercedes — with the Daimler board following such a claim with interest – want answers, and it could be that the governing body can actually still help them at this stage. Although likely to be spoken comments rather than recorded ones, if it has proof of any representations from another team then it will provide a clear explanation as to what happened.
But while it didn’t ever name the Wolffs, the FIA later confirmed that it “is satisfied that FOM’s compliance management system is robust enough to prevent any unauthorized disclosure of confidential information” and is not progressing with an investigation.
Given the lack of communication with Mercedes or either Wolff over the matter — and with no explanation so far — far from strengthening their respective positions in giving them a firm response to any doubts that had been raised in the two media outlets, it’s a climbdown that annoyed both the personnel in question and also their employers, and leaves legal action being considered.
Catching up this week, the overriding impression from those outside the FIA is that it was an attempt to get at Toto — from someone — and that Susie was deemed collateral damage. It appears to have backfired, enormously. And while I’ve been getting up to speed some time after it all became public, time is clearly not going to be a healer in this case.
Aside from the potential unfair damage to the Wolffs’ reputations that the statement may have triggered, it very much highlights the ongoing tension between the FIA, and F1 and the teams. There appears no solidarity between either the two main bodies or the current grid and FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, at a time when Concorde Agreement negotiations could get intense.
It was hardly a huge talking point prior to the initial FIA statement, but soon became one until the whereabouts of Lewis Hamilton’s trophy took over (on its way to Mercedes after a genuine misunderstanding, it seems). The speed at which the FIA appeared to backtrack suggests there was extremely little substance — if any at all — to act on, and shows how all parties are clearly quick to take a chance to try and get at the other, while political fighting between the teams themselves is never far away either.
There’s no racing for a few months, and no driver market drama in the pipeline, but it might not be the quiet off-season it looked like it could be this winter.
