AS A RESULT of my Sunday Times column we have received a French writ from Max Mosley and the FIA with regard to comments I made in September about the so-called Ferrari and McLaren spy scandal and the ensuing $100m fine for McLaren. We even appeared on the impressively named World Motor Sport Council’s agenda approving the use of the FIA’s money to pursue us. I had previously debated the energetic manner in which Mosley was apparently pursuing McLaren.

As a former Formula One driver, I have earnt the right to have an opinion about the sport, and probably know as much about it as anybody else. I have attended approaching 400 grands prix, 158 as a driver. I have spilt blood, broken bones, shed tears, generated tanker loads of sweat, tasted the champagne glories and plumbed the depths of misery. I have never been more passionate about F1 and will always share my opinions in an honest and open way, knowing readers will make up their own minds.

The timing of the writ is significant, in my view, given the FIA’s decision to find Renault guilty of having significant McLaren designs and information within their systems, but not administering any penalty. It is a warning sign to other journalists and publications to choose their words carefully over that decision. I’m tired of what I perceive as the “spin” and tactics of the FIA press office, as are many other journalists. I expect my accreditation pass for next year will be hindered in some way to make my coverage of F1 more difficult and to punish me. Or they will write to ITV again to say that my commentary is not up to standard despite my unprecedented six Royal Television Society Awards for sports broadcasting. So be it.

This past couple of weeks I have attended many functions where I have met high-level F1 people, among many others. The discussion always moves to “how will the FIA get themselves out of this corner by not punishing Renault despite the outcome of the McLaren case”. That was the perception of many, and remains the billion-dollar question.

I have no issue with Renault or McLaren, they are both former teams of mine and I remain good friends with many in the teams and admire all they have achieved. But very few drivers or key team personnel in F1 can look you in the eye and honestly say they have never witnessed or been part of a transfer of information between teams. The purpose of poaching other team players is to fast-track the development and performance of the car. It’s a question of where the line is drawn about transfer of knowledge and intellectual property.

The immensely successful former F1 designer Gordon Murray made a good point when he said that years ago it would have taken several vans to carry the paper-based designs from one team to another. With the digital age and the massively increased complexity of today’s cars, along with the pressure created by the billions of dollars of funding from the manufacturers and sponsors, the stakes have changed and the line needs clarifying. Of course the FIA and any legal system engaged in the process are right to investigate this.

Many drivers and team bosses will be mighty relieved they haven’t been dragged into this. The guillotine fell as McLaren went under it and Renault have passed unscathed. It is enlightening to read the transcripts from the separate cases. The McLaren judgment is about negativity and suspicion of possible use of Ferrari information, but no real show-stopper I could see. Even now the decision to punish or exclude McLaren for 2008 has been deferred.

The Renault decision is one of an understanding and supportive nature and one only of occasional “strong disapproval” despite clear and confirmed evidence that information was loaded on to their mainframe IT system, including drawings of McLaren’s shock absorber, fuel system, mass damper and seamless shift transmission. Some drawings were printed off and idly laid on a key desk before being handed back after a disinterested glance, said the verdict. I laughed out loud on that one. And just as McLaren protested Ferrari’s floor back at the Australian Grand Prix, Renault used information taken from a McLaren “J-Damper” drawing to seek rule clarification with the FIA. It was deemed that, as with McLaren, it could not be proven Renault benefited from it. Surprisingly, although the case is left open if further information surfaces, unlike McLaren, the Renault team will not be investigated with regard to their 2008 car. Why would that be? I accept there was an element of “live” transfer of unpublished information over three months between Stepney of Ferrari and Coughlan of McLaren, but it seems the actual proof of information within the Renault team was significantly more damning.

This issue badly needs clearing up, but the Renault verdict muddies the water. All teams now know the ground rules have changed a lot. To an extent Ferrari, McLaren and Renault are all culpable for being careless with their systems and personnel with regard to the security and transfer in and out of their critical designs and operating procedures. How that many people and that much information can be defined and controlled is another matter. It seems like a good memory might be a strong quality for future designers.