Funny how quickly Formula One's two 'new' teams disappeared off their radar, only to be resparked by rather sudden suggestions that a little-known, 29-year old Mexican OWRS/CART driver – who has taken two fortuitous rather than fought-for victories in a series hardly known for delivering the best Formula One drivers – is planning to race for Midland F1.

When (and if) the Russian/Canadian team make an appearance, for talk about the team's progress had gone rather quiet, with some even doubting whether the Midland Group has the financial clout to mount a sustained challenge in the most expensive spectacle on Earth.

At the time of the original announcement this column questioned the wisdom of the team, any team, for that matter, committing themselves to an initial three-year Formula One project during which it would receive no official or TV revenues, with no guarantees whatsoever that F1, under any name, would even exist after the period. In fact, we suggested that an entity wishing to enter the sport before 2008 would do well to purchase one of at least two teams up for sale at any one time – using the $48m bond it would otherwise be required to post.

Of course, between the announcement and this week's hint that Mario Dominguez may be in line for a Midland seat, there were some rather obscure stories that the team would procure Ferrari engines, but these emanated at a time when (still unconfirmed) rumours were rife that Sauber were to lose their supply of Maranello engines over that 2005 testing spat between the nine teams and the Swiss squad's engine masters. So, what better way of ratcheting up the pressure on poor old Peter than via convenient suggestions that Midland – said to be sourcing hardware from Dallara, remember – would ask their chassis partner to look down the Autostrada for power units?

The two companies, Ferrari and Dallara, are hardly strangers, plus there is a precedent in their combining with an industrial conglomerate in Formula One: in 1992 an Italian steel group sponsored the BMS Dallara-Ferrari team, with drivers JJ Lehto and Pier-Luigi Martini, which scored just two points – or less than 10% of the total scored by a (struggling) Ferrari that year...

But, other than early bursts of information and the announcement of some personnel appointments, all has been quiet on the Midland front. Maybe not surprisingly, though: a fortnight after the fanfare, post Brazilian Grand Prix, came an announcement that the GPWC was going ahead with its championship, and had appointed Germany's giant Sports and Entertainment GmbH to immediately institute commercial and operational infrastructures required for a breakaway series to run from 2008.

So, should Midland F1 go ahead with plans for entry into the championship from 2006, they may well discover they have millions invested (and a substantial bond posted) in a two-year project with no guarantees that it will be accepted into the GPWC should that come to pass - for Midland, by implication, can never be a full member of the manufacturer-backed body.

And, with Ferrari headed for the GPWC – if the recent outbursts by Fiat/Ferrari/Maserati President Luca di Montezemolo are anything to go by – will the Italian team wish to supply engines to 'Formula One' specification when their Gestione Sportiva is racing to vastly different regulations? So, again, Midland Group may find need to enter into technical deals with a duration of just two years.

Then, there is the uncertainty brought about by Banks vs Bernie Ecclestone, and, with millions at stake, would Midland not be better off awaiting the verdict and subsequent indication of the direction motorsport's premier formula may need to follow in future?

Could these be the real reasons why matters have gone rather quiet on the Midland F1 front recently?

The same could well be asked of the Team Dubai F1 project, who announced their proposed entry into F1 within a week of Midland, but with the stated intention of purchasing intellectual rights to McLaren chassis and usage rights to Mercedes engines, and running the operation as a McLaren-Mercedes 'B' operation.

But, after that initial flurry of news, no further information has been forthcoming despite the passage of six weeks, whilst stories from the region suggest that all has been quiet only due to Ramadan. Whilst that may seem, at first hearing, plausible, Formula One teams are international business entities much like banks or airlines, and Middle Eastern banks don't stop commercial activities during the holy period, nor do Middle East airlines stop flying then, either.

With Mercedes being a founder member of the GPWC, the same rationale outlined regarding Ferrari's engines can be applied to this operation, so, possibly Team Dubai, too, are treading water until greater clarity regarding Formula One/GP1/GPWC and, of course, the matter between Ecclestone and the three banks, comes to light?

Fortunately for Midland and Team Dubai, they have until 15 November 2005 before committing $48m and their entries for the following season; the downside, though, is that sport may see no concrete action either way before then.

Just why is it that certain Formula One observers are intent on finding Toyota guilty of underhand practice way in advance of any court case involving some former Ferrari employees and consultants who may have (and yet, may not have) sold the Japanese some designs and documents?

Even assuming – and until a verdict or admission by the alleged perpetrators is forthcoming, that is the only reasonable basis upon which to argue – that intellectual property belonging to Ferrari had, indeed, been misappropriated and ended up with Toyota Motorsport GmbH in Cologne, it would still be well-nigh impossible to prove that TMG had wilfully applied any of the property to the design of their TF103, let alone based the car directly upon Ferrari's F2002.

But, assume that a group of former employees and consultants did, indeed, steal intellectual material from Ferrari - and this is notoriously difficult to prove - then a totally separate case, namely that Toyota knew full well that the designs, drawings, analyses or whatever were not the property of those they employed in whatever capacities, but, rather belonged to the Italian team, needs expansion.

Using a medical analogy: should a patient consult a medical officer whose qualifications are subsequently proven as bogus, is the patient guilty of an offence merely for having consulted the 'doctor'? Taking medical analogy one step further: does a patient consulting a doctor at agreed over rare maladies hold subsequent rights over all future diagnoses made by the doctor, and retain the right to pronounce guilty of intellectual theft all subsequent patients consulting that doctor?

The answer is patently 'No' in all instances, for retaining experience and knowledge alone is no offence in reasonable countries; more to the point, all personnel in Formula One are employed for their qualifications AND experience, and simply forgetting what has been learned over many years is not a normal human trait. After all, Ferrari employed the experienced and knowledgeable team of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne when it wished to emulate their career peaks. Did it ask them to forget all they had learned whilst building championship-winning Benettons in 1994/5?

Any 'guilty' verdict in any direction, therefore, must hang upon direct proof that all or any information on documents or electronic storage devices was the express property of Ferrari, that the accused former employees were aware of that fact, and that they maliciously, and for a separate fee, passed such information on to Toyota. And, even then, unless it could be proven – and no hard proof has been presented, not even by possible disgruntled employees of the Japanese team – that Toyota were fully and totally aware of the true status of the information, could as much as a whispered accusation be levelled against TMG.

Ironically, any suggestions that the TF103 was based upon F2002 totally overlook the fact that the former was hardly a paragon of performance – despite running the Michelin tyres believed to be superior to Bridgestone's best – whilst the latter ranks as one of the most successful Grand Prix designs of all time. Equally, to imply, as some have, that Ferrari's weight distribution, not rubber performance, was the raison d'etre behind the 'theft' conveniently disregards the race-as-you-qualify regulations introduced after any offences were alleged to have been committed – revised regulations had, of course, made shifting of ballast between qualifying and race illegal through the imposition of Parc Ferme procedures.

So, until any verdict pronounces Toyota and their management guilty of intellectual property theft, and, remember, they have not even been charged nor does any dossier accuse them of any willful wrong-doing, the company and their officers are due all respects.