{"id":22898,"date":"2014-07-07T18:57:10","date_gmt":"2014-07-07T17:57:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/issue_content\/clause-for-concern\/"},"modified":"2020-12-04T10:50:33","modified_gmt":"2020-12-04T10:50:33","slug":"clause-concern","status":"publish","type":"issue_content","link":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/archive\/article\/november-2007\/34\/clause-concern\/","title":{"rendered":"Clause for concern"},"content":{"rendered":"

The paragraphs highlighted in the FIA document above are at the core of Formula 1\u2019s biggest scandal. McLaren has been fined 100 million dollars and stripped of its Constructor points, not for stealing designs, not for offering bribes, but for possibly gaining, through the actions of a disgruntled Ferrari employee, a theoretical intellectual advantage \u2013 an advantage which the FIA itself says would be impossible to quantify. With an invisible crime to punish, and the eyes of the sport and the media upon it, the FIA decided McLaren had transgressed against clause C of paragraph 151, Breach of Rules \u2013 a clause containing no concrete definitions of illegal behaviour. In this section, Nigel Roebuck assesses the outcome, and F1 luminaries comment on the judgement, which we print in full<\/em><\/p>\n

It began as the story of two dishonest and greedy men, both unreasonably dissatisfied with their lot. When Ross Brawn, after countless years on the road, decided to step down \u2013 at least temporarily \u2013 as Ferrari Technical Director, at the end of last year, Nigel Stepney, another Brit at Maranello, harboured high hopes of promotion. Over in Woking, meantime, Chief Designer Mike Coughlan was less than content at McLaren.<\/p>\n

Stepney, the Race Technical Manager at Ferrari, had previously been the team\u2019s chief mechanic, and some say there has never been a better mechanic in Formula 1<\/a>. During Stepney\u2019s watch, Ferrari achieved a level of reliability unequalled in the sport\u2019s history, as Michael Schumacher can gratefully attest. Stepney\u2019s salary, said to be well over a million dollars, was substantially more than he could have earned in that capacity with any other team.<\/p>\n

During their years at Ferrari, Stepney worked closely with Brawn, but clearly he had a higher opinion of himself than did the powers-that-be at Maranello. When Brawn decided to go fishing for a year, Mario Almondo was brought in to replace him and Stepney, while perhaps not aspiring to the top job, was angered by the decision. Last December he said as much to journalists \u2013 the Ferrari hierarchy was furious.<\/p>\n

In the spring Stepney contacted Coughlan, with whom he had previously worked at Benetton, and suggested that they offer themselves as a \u2018rescue package\u2019 to Honda, whose calamitous form this season has been well documented. In the meantime, he discussed aspects of Ferrari with Coughlan, and it was as the result of information gleaned from these talks that at the first race of the season, in Melbourne, McLaren asked for clarification from the FIA as to the legality of the \u2018floor\u2019 of the new Ferrari F2007. After the Australian Grand Prix, the FIA\u2019s Charlie Whiting announced that it was not in conformity with the rules \u2013 but by then Kimi R\u00e4ikk\u00f6nen had already won the race, and his victory stands.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, a 780-page Ferrari dossier found its way to Coughlan\u2019s house, and his wife Trudie duly took it to a print shop in nearby Horsham where it was transferred on to two CDs, the bill being paid with a personal cheque. The original dossier was shredded and burned in Coughlan\u2019s garden. Had not an employee at the print shop, concerned about the job he had been asked to do, contacted Maranello, the affair might never have come to light.<\/p>\n

At the end of May Stepney and Coughlan had a meeting with Honda\u2019s Nick Fry at Heathrow Airport, where the possibility of their working for the company was discussed, but any question of documents or dossiers, Fry insisted, was never discussed. Coughlan, apparently, was of greater interest to him than Stepney, but no deal was concluded with either.<\/p>\n

It was on Monday, July 2, the day after the French Grand Prix, that the news broke that \u2018a Ferrari employee was suspected of handing confidential material to a McLaren employee\u2019, and the fact this was also only four days ahead of the start of practice for the British Grand Prix immediately raised suspicions that the leak had been timed, by Ferrari, to cause maximum disruption to McLaren at a crucial moment in the season. (There would be a similar incident later in the year, at Monza, when Italian legal authorities arrived at the McLaren motorhome \u2013 immediately before qualifying \u2013 simply to inform certain personnel that they were \u2018under investigation\u2019.)<\/p>\n

The FIA announced that the matter would be discussed by the World Motor Sport Council at a meeting in Paris on July 26, by which time a McLaren-Mercedes had been dismantled, and minutely examined. No evidence could be found that any aspect of the design of Ferrari\u2019s F2007 had been incorporated into McLaren\u2019s MP4-22 \u2013 and no surprise there, as the cars differ widely in concept, and had anyway been \u2018signed off\u2019 many months earlier. Ferrari\u2019s contention, though, was that details of its car, and of its working practices, had inevitably benefited McLaren in various ways.<\/p>\n

Eventually the 26-man council unanimously concluded that there was no clear evidence that McLaren, as a team, had benefited from the confidential Ferrari information in Coughlan\u2019s possession. That being so, it was felt there was no justification for punishment.<\/p>\n

Unanimous the decision may have been, but it did not keep one Italian member of the council, Luigi Macaluso, from afterwards declaring that he had tried to persuade his fellow members to vote otherwise: \u201cFor me, McLaren are guilty, and that\u2019s that.\u201d<\/p>\n

On the heels of Macaluso\u2019s comments came a torrent of fury from his homeland, Ferrari\u2019s Jean Todt in particular responding with that brand of self-righteous outrage he has made his own.<\/p>\n

\u201cI wonder what would have happened with the roles reversed,\u201d Todt said. \u201cI wonder if they had found in the house of a Ferrari chief designer 780 classified documents of another team\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cThere would have been cries of a scandal, and an exemplary punishment would have been demanded. And it would have been granted, I have no doubt.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is not even a sign of logic in this verdict. Either they are guilty or they are not. McLaren were found responsible of having violated the regulations of F1, of having behaved in a fraudulent manner, but they haven\u2019t been punished.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne thing is certain: we at Ferrari can calmly look at ourselves in the mirror. I think others can\u2019t do the same thing.\u201d<\/p>\n

These last remarks provoked a good deal of mirth in the paddock, where the general response was that Ferrari was somewhat poorly placed to complain about decisions taken over time in Paris. When, for example, Michael Schumacher blatantly attempted to barge Jacques Villeneuve off the road in their championship-deciding race at Jerez in 1997, it was confidently expected \u2013 not least because he had done the same to Damon Hill at Adelaide three years earlier \u2013 that he would be hammered by the powers-that-be.<\/p>\n

In the end, though, the FIA came down on Schumacher like a ton of feathers. His second place in the World Championship was struck from the records \u2013 but he was allowed to \u2018keep\u2019 his five wins from the season. Other than that, the FIA required him to do some road safety work on its behalf, and that was all she wrote.<\/p>\n

FIA President Max Mosley earnestly attempted to persuade the press that really Schumacher had been very<\/i> seriously punished. To be stripped of the title of \u2018Vice World Champion\u2019 was no little matter, he said. In vain, one tried to think of a driver to whom second place meant less than Michael Schumacher. <\/p>\n

Mosley also said that the governing body\u2019s conclusion was that Schumacher\u2019s action, while deliberate (as proved beyond doubt by in-cockpit footage at the moment of the controversy), had been spontaneous, rather than preconceived. So that was all right, then.<\/p>\n

A couple of years later, in the latter stages of the 1999 season, the Ferraris of Eddie Irvine and Schumacher finished first and second in the Malaysian Grand Prix, only to be disqualified when their bargeboards were found not to conform to the rules. Their removal from the results promoted McLaren\u2019s Mika Hakkinen into first place, and that in turn confirmed him as World Champion.<\/p>\n

While there was no suggestion that Ferrari had acted illegally \u2013 the bargeboard infringement was insufficient to have created any performance advantage \u2013 Ross Brawn afterwards admitted to Williams\u2019s Patrick Head that the team was indeed \u2018bang to rights\u2019. It was unfortunate, but there it was.<\/p>\n

Thus there was some surprise when Ferrari later appealed against its disqualification \u2013 and even more when, at a meeting in Paris the following weekend, it was decided that the bargeboards were<\/i> in conformity, after all. Irvine and Schumacher were reinstated in the Sepang results, and the World Championship, with the Japanese Grand Prix still to come, was not dead after all, for now Irvine could still beat Hakkinen to the title.<\/p>\n

In the event, this did not transpire, Ferrari proving surprisingly less competitive than in Malaysia, but still the team narrowly beat McLaren to the constructors\u2019 title \u2013 which would have been impossible without the 16 points from Sepang.<\/p>\n

Back to the present. Following the first WMSC hearing, Ferrari lost no time in appealing against the decision not to punish McLaren, and a date \u2013 September 13 \u2013 was set, this falling in the four-day break between the Italian and Belgian Grands Prix. Later, the FIA announced, new evidence to be presented was such that it would no longer be heard in the FIA Court of Appeal, but before the World Motor Sport Council once again. A whole new \u2018trial\u2019, in effect.<\/p>\n

The FIA became aware of much of the \u2018new evidence\u2019, remarkably, through none other than Ron Dennis. It will be remembered that his drivers, Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton<\/a>, became embroiled in the qualifying session at the Hungarian Grand Prix, during which each, in different ways, appeared deliberately to impede the other. No other competitor was affected, and it should have been an intra-team problem, to be resolved by McLaren. As it was, though, the FIA stewards decided to become involved, and Alonso, who had taken pole position, was punished with the arbitrary loss of five grid positions.<\/p>\n

Given that Hamilton appeared to have started the whole thing, Alonso was particularly incensed, and on race morning had a face-to-face confrontation with Dennis. For some little time he had been unhappy with his lot at McLaren, feeling he was not getting the \u2018number one\u2019 treatment he felt was his due, and undoubtedly he was thoroughly unsettled by the pace and performance of his rookie team-mate, which not even Hamilton\u2019s keenest supporters could quite have anticipated.<\/p>\n

Neither man has revealed the detail of what was said that morning, but the belief is that Alonso effectively threatened Dennis that if he did not \u2018slow Hamilton down\u2019 (and perhaps get rid of him at the end of the season), he, Alonso, would go to the FIA with \u2018new evidence\u2019 on the Stepney\/Coughlan affair.<\/p>\n

If the facts are true, it was not only ill-advised for Alonso to behave in this fashion, but also remarkably stupid. In Formula 1 circles Dennis has a long-established reputation for integrity, and throughout the investigations into this disreputable affair McLaren had done everything possible to co-operate with the FIA. Not only did Dennis refuse to be coerced by Alonso, he said that if he had any new evidence he should impart it to the FIA as soon as possible. A few hours later Alonso\u2019s manager came to Dennis to say that Fernando had acted in haste and anger, and wished to retract what he said, but in fact, as soon as the stormy conversation had concluded, Dennis had immediately telephoned FIA President Max Mosley. <\/p>\n

After the race Alonso came to see Dennis, offered apologies for his behaviour earlier on, and the two men shook hands. By now, though, the genie was out of the bottle: not only had Dennis learned that day of new evidence linking Stepney and Coughlan, but so also had the FIA.<\/p>\n

At no stage of the entire affair has there been any suggestion that McLaren incorporated information from the Ferrari dossier into its car. Rather, the basis of the case against McLaren has been that it benefited from knowledge of Ferrari work practices.<\/p>\n

Once in receipt of the Ferrari documentation, Coughlan imparted some details to McLaren\u2019s test driver, Pedro de la Rosa, with whom he had worked previously, and with whom he had a good relationship. De la Rosa, in turn, communicated it to his good friend, and fellow Spaniard, Alonso. A sizeable number of text messages and e-mails leave no doubt about this.<\/p>\n

That said, there is considerable doubt that it was actually \u2018cutting edge\u2019 information. There were, for example, details of the weight distribution of the Ferrari F2007, but this car, as previously said, is quite radically different in concept from McLaren\u2019s MP4-22. Stepney had also furnished Coughlan with information about Ferrari pit stops: at Melbourne, he said, Kimi R\u00e4ikk\u00f6nen would be stopping on lap 18. In point of fact R\u00e4ikk\u00f6nenn pitted on lap 19, but, as Dennis and others have pointed out, this is hardly classified information. Given that an extra 10 kilos of fuel costs about three-tenths of a second per lap, it is relatively simple to calculate \u2013 by comparing a car\u2019s lap time in the first and second segments of qualifying (when it is very light on fuel) and the third segment (when it has \u2018fuel for the race\u2019 on board \u2013 when it will make its first stop.<\/p>\n

This e-mail correspondence between Coughlan and de la Rosa (and de la Rosa and Alonso) apparently ceased after the Bahrain Grand Prix, the third round of the World Championship, on April 15. By then, Stepney had been useful to McLaren in other ways, suggesting, for example, that the team seek clarification from the FIA as to the legality of the \u2018floor\u2019 of this season\u2019s Ferrari F2007.<\/p>\n

The revelation of \u2018new evidence\u2019 came as a body blow to Dennis, who had previously questioned his employees as to whether or not they knew of the collusion between Stepney and Coughlan, and had believed that Coughlan alone was involved. It was in this belief that Dennis attended the first WMSC hearing in July, at which McLaren escaped punishment. The second one, on September 13, promised to be very much serious, and so it proved.<\/p>\n

Once Mosley knew of \u2018new evidence\u2019 (as revealed to him by Dennis following the row with Alonso in Hungary), the FIA required statements from all the McLaren drivers, revealing everything<\/i> they knew. If they were to comply, Mosley promised, they would be guaranteed personal immunity from proceedings under the International Sporting Code and the Formula 1 regulations. \u201cHowever,\u201d his letter concluded, \u201cin the event that it later comes to light that you have withheld any potentially relevant information, serious consequences could follow.\u201d<\/p>\n

At no stage has there been any suggestion that Hamilton was involved, but Alonso and de la Rosa submitted very full reports of what they knew. The WMSC debated the matter at length in Paris, and after many hours announced that McLaren would be stripped of all constructors\u2019 championship points for 2007 (which automatically handed the title to Ferrari) \u2013 and would also be fined $100,000,000. Numbing.<\/p>\n

The reaction throughout the paddock \u2013 save in the Ferrari area, anyway \u2013 was that the punishment was absurdly disproportionate to the offence, an impression which gained further strength when the FIA produced a document on the judgement.<\/p>\n

Item 5.3, for example: \u201cThe WMSC does not have evidence that any complete Ferrari design was copied and subsequently wholly incorporated into the McLaren car as a result of Coughlan passing information from Stepney to McLaren. However, it is difficult to accept that the secret Ferrari information that was within Coughlan\u2019s knowledge never influenced his judgment in the performance of his duties. It is not necessary for McLaren to have copied a complete Ferrari design for it to have benefited from Coughlan\u2019s knowledge. For example, the secret Ferrari information cannot but have informed the views Coughlan expressed to others in the McLaren design department, for example regarding which design projects to prioritise or which research to pursue. The advantage gained may have been as subtle as Coughlan being in a position to suggest alternative ways of approaching different design challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or item 7.1: \u201cThe WMSC believes the nature of the information illicitly held by McLaren was information of a nature which, if used or in any way taken into account, could confer a significant sporting advantage upon McLaren.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe WMSC does not have evidence that\u2026\u201d \u201cIt is difficult to accept that\u2026\u201d \u201cThe advantage gained may<\/i> have been\u2026\u201d \u201cCould<\/i> confer a significant sporting advantage\u2026\u201d Phraseology of that kind hardly sits easily with a fine of draconian proportions.<\/p>\n

At Spa, the day after the Paris hearing, Mosley said that, in his opinion, McLaren had got off lightly. \u201cThey were very nearly out of business \u2013 very nearly. I think what we did was arguably less than we should have done \u2013 that $100m is less than the difference between his [Dennis\u2019s] budget and those of Williams or Renault or several other teams, so it\u2019s a very minor punishment, as such. The other teams clearly understand that nobody should do this \u2013 and in fact I think they\u2019re actually relieved to know that we will stamp it out. Once you get this culture of cheating in a sport, it\u2019s a complete disaster, and you\u2019ve got to cut it out as soon as you find it. I\u2019m just trying to run a fair, proper sport, as far as I\u2019m able, and the World Council is the same.<\/p>\n

\u201cMcLaren was extremely lucky that we didn\u2019t simply say, \u2018You have polluted the World Championship in 2007 \u2013 and you\u2019ve probably polluted it in 2008, as well, because we\u2019ve no way of knowing what information you\u2019re using in your 2007 or 2008 cars, so you\u2019d better stay out of the World Championship until 2009 \u2013 if you\u2019re still around \u2013 because that way we know it\u2019s completely fair\u2019. We didn\u2019t do that, and I think when history gets to be written about this, that may be what we will be reproached for \u2013 doing too little, not too much.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ferrari apart, that is not a viewpoint much in evidence among the other teams \u2013 indeed, their feeling was that Ferrari were ill-placed to assume the moral high ground, to gloat. <\/p>\n

Mosley also said that the drivers, as well as their team, could have been stripped of their championship points, \u201con the grounds that there is a suspicion that they had an advantage they should not have had\u201d. A suspicion<\/i>?<\/p>\n

Jackie Stewart was one of many to suggest that it was insane for the sport to wash its dirty linen in public this way, pointing out that, in varying ways, this sort of thing had always<\/i> gone on. \u201cWhen I started Stewart Grand Prix,\u201d he said, \u201cwe hired people from Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Arrows, Jordan and God knows who else. Every single one of them brought with them intellectual property secrets \u2013 and some of them, I dare say, had pieces of paper that they\u2019d kept because they thought they were valuable to them. I certainly wasn\u2019t aware of that \u2013 and I didn\u2019t have anyone into the office saying, \u2018Oh, by the way, I\u2019m going to bring this with me\u2026\u2019 I mean, I knew<\/i> they were going to bring that with them! That\u2019s what has always<\/i> happened.<\/p>\n

Adrian Newey left Williams, and went to McLaren \u2013 he left a world championship-winning team, and is anyone going to suggest he did that without taking any knowledge of Williams with him? I mean, for God\u2019s sake, that was one of the reasons why McLaren recruited him! Then he left McLaren, and went to Red Bull \u2013 did he do that without taking extraordinarily<\/i> important knowledge with him? Of course not!\u201d<\/p>\n

Two years ago, a couple of Ferrari engineers, recruited by Toyota, took Maranello software with them. They were duly dealt with under the processes of civil law, but on that occasion the FIA did not become involved.<\/p>\n

At Spa, Renault\u2019s Pat Symonds was asked if he considered McLaren guilty. \u201cMmm, yes, I suppose so,\u201d he said. Guilty of what? \u201cNot very much,\u201d said Symonds. \u201cNot very much\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

Hans Stuck<\/strong><\/p>\n

From what I\u2019ve heard, there is some guilt. I would say the points penalty is fine, the money is too much. It doesn\u2019t fit into the system. The punishment should be a warning for other people not to do like this, but the money is too high. Ferrari had this problem with Toyota a few years ago, with people taking stuff there. I think maybe they should check what is going on there. Why are people doing it? Are they doing it for the money, or because they don\u2019t like Ferrari any more? How is this possible? It\u2019s not good for the sport. I have all my guests in the Paddock Club, who are mainly high-value sponsors, they all say what about all this shit going on? What kind of business is this? Do we want to come here any more? The worst damage is for McLaren-Mercedes, and for the fans.<\/p>\n

Ove Andersson<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think it is outrageous, what has happened, the way the FIA has gone about it. This is typical \u2013 money. There is no common sense. You can\u2019t exclude McLaren from F1, so it\u2019s completely different to what happened to us. [Toyota\u2019s Corolla WRC cars were excluded for a year after turbocharger infringements in 1995.] That wasn\u2019t so important. People are always moving around in F1, and when Benetton people went to Ferrari I don\u2019t think they went empty-handed. This is always happening. Maybe not in such a vulgar way as this has been done. However, people say any publicity, whether bad or good, is always positive, because it creates a lot of interest.<\/p>\n

Keke Rosberg<\/strong><\/p>\n

I hear from inside of McLaren that they still don\u2019t understand why they have been penalised. They don\u2019t think there was anything in it, and they must know. Of course $100m is a lot of money. I would have wished that for one instance if a penalty had to be imposed, it was a loss of points. We know it would have been a financial penalty, but it would not have been announced to the public as a so-many-millions fine. I don\u2019t like to talk about money like telephone numbers, and I wish we could have talked about it in a sophisticated manner. Information has been moving for years, although they didn\u2019t have computers in my day. A good designer or engineer moving knows most of the stuff. You can\u2019t copy directly anyway, so you can only say, \u2018Well our philosophy was this\u2019. A good aerodynamicist will know numbers, knows all the numbers to aim for,
\nbut then another team\u2019s wind tunnel gives different numbers, so even those can\u2019t be compared directly.<\/p>\n

Dan Gurney<\/strong><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t know if this sort of thing went on in my day, but it\u2019s probably safe to say the current era doesn\u2019t have a monopoly on sinister characters. Of course, in my day there weren\u2019t millions and millions of dollars at stake, and now with computers everything is so much more sophisticated. And back in the so-called golden era of racing, there were waaaay fewer rules. All the design breakthroughs came from people who were trying to show they were smarter than their competitors, instead of getting a half per cent gain here and a one per cent gain there.<\/p>\n

Mario Andretti<\/strong><\/p>\n

How do you quantify $100 million? How do you react to that? I don\u2019t know. Why not $50 million? Why not $200 million? Is this an arbitrary figure or is it something in the FIA by-laws? We can compare this to the National Football League in the US which just imposed its \u2018maximum allowable fine\u2019 of $500,000 on New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick for their infraction [illegally tape-recording opposing teams\u2019 signals], but at least that\u2019s the maximum fine allowed. <\/p>\n

Does the FIA have a free hand to do whatever it wants? Because McLaren can afford $100 million, do you charge them $100 million, and if Spyker did the same thing they would fine them $10,000? Those are the questions it raises and who am I to say what is right or wrong? What I can say is that, whatever transpired, I don\u2019t think it made any difference in the performance of the team. With or without that information, I think McLaren probably would have had the same success, because I don\u2019t think one single individual can have that much influence in making the car \u2013 all of a sudden \u2013 that much better. And unfortunately it negates all the efforts of the whole team to get to the level of performance they are now enjoying. That\u2019s the real tragedy in my opinion.<\/p>\n

This sort of stuff has been going on from the beginning of time. I remember at Lotus when we had something nobody else had with the ground effects. I\u2019m not going to mention names, but I remember when a very prominent designer was pulled out from under our car in Belgium. They didn\u2019t fine him, they didn\u2019t throw him in jail. The following year the team he worked for had a better car than we did, so draw your own conclusion. So this has been going on forever; it\u2019s more sophisticated today because they give it the name of espionage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":753,"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","categories":[],"tags":[34586,35137,34539,35129,34088,406,543,22556,115462,236,34101,34625,34118,34092,75290,45331,35032,36394,34619,34629,38120,34583,40365,35964,36179,227,35162,34640,35821,115578,115747,115463,115554,115482,115689,115529,115662,115466,228,22206,21984],"issue_decade":[121591],"issue_year":[121609],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_content\/22898"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_content"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/issue_content"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/753"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22898"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_content\/22898\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":716124,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_content\/22898\/revisions\/716124"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22898"},{"taxonomy":"issue_decade","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_decade?post=22898"},{"taxonomy":"issue_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.motorsportmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue_year?post=22898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}