Mclaren admit to being at fault.
Discussion
flemke said:
FNG said:
I hope you're right but in the eyes of the slightly-interested majority, you've got:
a guilty verdict from the governing body
an admission from the defendant
media using headlines "mclaren admit"
so if you're not very bothered about putting much thought into it McLaren were guilty and the FIA were right.
Then consider that the FIA dealt with Renault in the same way they initially dealt with McLaren (to the slight amazement of many at the time).
Regardless that the Renault thing won't got any further (ignoring the probability that the McLaren thing was always going to get pursued beyond reasonable credibility), the FIA to a cursory glance have been consistent and therefore, one might infer, fair.
I don't agree with that view - I do think there's a lot of people who will see it in pretty simplistic terms though.
It is true that the media by and large have swallowed the FIA/Ferrari tale hook, line and sinker.a guilty verdict from the governing body
an admission from the defendant
media using headlines "mclaren admit"
so if you're not very bothered about putting much thought into it McLaren were guilty and the FIA were right.
Then consider that the FIA dealt with Renault in the same way they initially dealt with McLaren (to the slight amazement of many at the time).
Regardless that the Renault thing won't got any further (ignoring the probability that the McLaren thing was always going to get pursued beyond reasonable credibility), the FIA to a cursory glance have been consistent and therefore, one might infer, fair.
I don't agree with that view - I do think there's a lot of people who will see it in pretty simplistic terms though.
Perhaps unsurprising, as they comprise the generalist media, who don't know any better, and the specialist motorsport media who depend heavily on the FIA and Ferrari for information and access.
Interesting that it's now eight days since the Renault charade and we still lack the transcript that the FIA promised us. The proofreading must be more difficult that one imagined, although they managed to turn around the pair of McLaren transcripts in half the time. I don't suppose the delay relates to anyone's wanting the evidence against Renault to remain in the shadows.
Well, here's a link to the Renault transcript.
http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
35secToNuvolari said:
Well, here's a link to the Renault transcript.
http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
Agreed that it seems like a pretty casual infraction, in light of what normally must go on. http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
What struck me from the transcript was:
- There was minimal scrutiny into what Renault did or did not do. Some of Mackereth's answers were totally inadequate and unconvincing, yet the WMSC did not probe them, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt when there was no justification for doing so.
- The circumstantial evidence - such as Renault's giving Mackereth upon his joining them a new job that had nothing whatsoever to do with his previous experience, but just 'coincidentally' was in one of the areas about which he had stolen McLaren IP - was given no weight at all.
This would not be so bad if the same WMSC had not based their punishment of McLaren on purely circumstantial evidence, from which the WMSC assumed the worst case for McLaren, and then assumed the best case for Renault.
- It appeared that Renault had, contrary to its public claims, done not a lot to explore the matter internally. For example, they asked 20 technical people (out of a total of 450) whether they had come into contact with the illicit data. Ten of the 20 said "Yes", but Renault then decided not to ask any of the remaining 430.
In addition, Renault did whatever internal investigations within a fortnight of the news becoming public in September. They had not, however, bothered to probe any further than that in the ten weeks since then.
- Knowing nothing about the law, but, having now read four transcripts, one unimpressed with the barrister who has represented McLaren in all hearings.
- Renault was presumed innocent in this hearing - as it should have been.
From reading the detail, it seems highly probable that the WMSC were looking for a way to exonerate Renault. If they had not let Renault off lightly, Alonso may not have had a ride this year, and the manufacturer may have left F1 altogether. Surely the FIA was trying to avoid both things.
It was very interesting that, at the end of the testimony, the Renault brief called the Council's attention to the Renault financial statements. He did this in the context of "If the Council should be contemplating a financial penalty for my client, would they first please look at..." (my paraphrase).
One does not know what they would have seen, but it certainly seemed like the reference was to a set of financial statements that suggested that Renault could have afforded to pay very little by way of a fine.
If so, this does not seem like an appropriate way of conditioning the jury - "We can't afford much, so can you go easy on us?"
The problem isn't that Renault got off too lightly. The problem is that what the FIA already had done to McLaren was outrageous and indefensible. If one doesn't believe that, how else can one explain the huge series of dubious regulatory decisions this year that all went against McLaren and helped Ferrari?
I'm on your side and agree with almost all that has been said regarding both the McLaren thing, the Renault thing and now the Brundle thing.
The thing is.............
.........................is there really any point in following it as an entertainment (I never call it a sport).
It holds no interest for me any more. I can't see anything to be gained by following something that is so cynically manipulated.
The thing is.............
.........................is there really any point in following it as an entertainment (I never call it a sport).
It holds no interest for me any more. I can't see anything to be gained by following something that is so cynically manipulated.
RobbieMeister said:
I'm on your side and agree with almost all that has been said regarding both the McLaren thing, the Renault thing and now the Brundle thing.
The thing is.............
.........................is there really any point in following it as an entertainment (I never call it a sport).
It holds no interest for me any more. I can't see anything to be gained by following something that is so cynically manipulated.
One can only default to Samuel Johnson's description of a man's decision to enter into a second marriage: "the triumph of hope over experience".The thing is.............
.........................is there really any point in following it as an entertainment (I never call it a sport).
It holds no interest for me any more. I can't see anything to be gained by following something that is so cynically manipulated.
When will bloody Ferrari stop Moaning.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
flemke said:
35secToNuvolari said:
Well, here's a link to the Renault transcript.
http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
Agreed that it seems like a pretty casual infraction, in light of what normally must go on. http://www.fia.com/public/Transcript_6_Dec_2007.pd...
The most interesting thing about these transcripts is to see how they are conducted. You can almost see Mosely twirling his index fingers saying, 'let's hurry this up.' Overall, only 21 drawings, four printed out, nothing on the car. Seems like a pretty casual infraction. Surprised they weren't kicked out of F1.
What struck me from the transcript was:
- It appeared that Renault had, contrary to its public claims, done not a lot to explore the matter internally. For example, they asked 20 technical people (out of a total of 450) whether they had come into contact with the illicit data. Ten of the 20 said "Yes", but Renault then decided not to ask any of the remaining 430.
In addition, Renault did whatever internal investigations within a fortnight of the news becoming public in September. They had not, however, bothered to probe any further than that in the ten weeks since then.
ocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise. The cynic in me now thinks that Couglan was kept sweet (and not fired on the spot back in May) because McMerc knew Couglan knew there was more than what was declared.
Or that Max, wanting to turn the knife and with one eye on the civil action against the press, told Ron Dennis that he would call off the continued examination of the '08 car (which could would have ruined the '08 season for them), unless they issued a public, grovelling apology.
That way Max gets the moral high ground and some good evidence to support his libel action.
That way Max gets the moral high ground and some good evidence to support his libel action.
coetzeeh said:
McLaren on the other hand did a thorough investigation after the Alonso e-mail debacle and declared that no one other than Coughlan, Alonso or de la Rosa were "in the know" - only for this to be proven boocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.
Interesting theory, and it made a good headline, but you might want to try reading all the FIA material before you opine.ocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.flemke said:
coetzeeh said:
McLaren on the other hand did a thorough investigation after the Alonso e-mail debacle and declared that no one other than Coughlan, Alonso or de la Rosa were "in the know" - only for this to be proven boocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.
Interesting theory, and it made a good headline, but you might want to try reading all the FIA material before you opine.ocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.jellison said:
flemke said:
coetzeeh said:
McLaren on the other hand did a thorough investigation after the Alonso e-mail debacle and declared that no one other than Coughlan, Alonso or de la Rosa were "in the know" - only for this to be proven boocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.
Interesting theory, and it made a good headline, but you might want to try reading all the FIA material before you opine.ocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.The problem is that the extent of most people's "understanding" of this affair has been limited to what they heard on tv or read in the newspaper or on a website.
Insofar as that stuff was dumbed down, sensationalised, or simply misconstrued by the journalist in the first place, and was therefore worthless, there appear to be many more people with opinions than there are people who've tried to be fully informed.
jellison said:
When will bloody Ferrari stop Moaning.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
I dont need to click through, this is the bit about the comments from Aldo Costa. Yes?http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
I thought exactly the same thing as you when I read it. I think it's just the way the Iti's are.
flemke said:
coetzeeh said:
McLaren on the other hand did a thorough investigation after the Alonso e-mail debacle and declared that no one other than Coughlan, Alonso or de la Rosa were "in the know" - only for this to be proven boocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.
Interesting theory, and it made a good headline, but you might want to try reading all the FIA material before you opine.ocks and McLaren having to grovel and apologise.Not sure if I could absorb the 300 pages of FIA report - my attention span...
RobbieMeister said:
jellison said:
When will bloody Ferrari stop Moaning.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
I dont need to click through, this is the bit about the comments from Aldo Costa. Yes?http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64438 - JESUS.
Have they not Buggered up the Sport enough this year!
I thought exactly the same thing as you when I read it. I think it's just the way the Iti's are.
Wop's
it gets worse
taken from autosport
Ferrari's senior management has made it clear that it remains far from happy about McLaren's handling of the spy affair - and especially their continued insistence they had done nothing wrong until a recent public letter of apology.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo and company CEO Jean Todt both hit out at McLaren during a meeting with the Italian press, stating they were furious at the way their Woking-based rivals approached the FIA hearings into the spying affair.
Quoted by Corriere dello Sport, Todt said: "At the hearing McLaren came with 200 signatures of managers saying they never had access to the information.
"Then, three months later, when the FIA did its verifications, it was demonstrated that was completely false. They went corrupting their own personnel to make them sign false documentation.
"Should Ron Dennis be banned? We can't rule in place of the FIA. Let's see what the organization is like in 2008. This is a world that goes around quickly.
"It's December now and the championship starts in mid March. Many things can happen in three months."
Di Montezemolo was quoted by Repubblica as saying that his low point of the season was in July, when McLaren were not punished despite having been found to have Ferrari documents in their possession.
"I can't forget the first verdict by the FIA, the one on July 26, the worst moment of the season for me," he said.
"If Ferrari didn't come up with certain proof we knew we had, it would have ended up with nothing, and McLaren would have got away with it."
When asked about Mercedes' involvement, he added: "I'm shocked about the behaviour of Mercedes, but I don't want to talk about it. I'd rather joke that I'm proud Ferrari's school of thought is so appreciated in England and in Germany."
Reacting to questions about the McLaren guarantees not to develop parts that could have come from Ferrari intellectual property, di Montezemolo said: "Yes, I'm convinced that at least the colours will be different. I don't expect a red McLaren. It's better if we talk about something else."
And di Montezemolo hit out at the fact McLaren won Racing Car of the Year, and Lewis Hamilton International Driver of the Year at the recent Autosport Awards.
"The English never miss a chance to demonstrate their lack of sportsmanship," he said. "The best car is the one that wins, and that's the Ferrari."
taken from autosport
Ferrari's senior management has made it clear that it remains far from happy about McLaren's handling of the spy affair - and especially their continued insistence they had done nothing wrong until a recent public letter of apology.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo and company CEO Jean Todt both hit out at McLaren during a meeting with the Italian press, stating they were furious at the way their Woking-based rivals approached the FIA hearings into the spying affair.
Quoted by Corriere dello Sport, Todt said: "At the hearing McLaren came with 200 signatures of managers saying they never had access to the information.
"Then, three months later, when the FIA did its verifications, it was demonstrated that was completely false. They went corrupting their own personnel to make them sign false documentation.
"Should Ron Dennis be banned? We can't rule in place of the FIA. Let's see what the organization is like in 2008. This is a world that goes around quickly.
"It's December now and the championship starts in mid March. Many things can happen in three months."
Di Montezemolo was quoted by Repubblica as saying that his low point of the season was in July, when McLaren were not punished despite having been found to have Ferrari documents in their possession.
"I can't forget the first verdict by the FIA, the one on July 26, the worst moment of the season for me," he said.
"If Ferrari didn't come up with certain proof we knew we had, it would have ended up with nothing, and McLaren would have got away with it."
When asked about Mercedes' involvement, he added: "I'm shocked about the behaviour of Mercedes, but I don't want to talk about it. I'd rather joke that I'm proud Ferrari's school of thought is so appreciated in England and in Germany."
Reacting to questions about the McLaren guarantees not to develop parts that could have come from Ferrari intellectual property, di Montezemolo said: "Yes, I'm convinced that at least the colours will be different. I don't expect a red McLaren. It's better if we talk about something else."
And di Montezemolo hit out at the fact McLaren won Racing Car of the Year, and Lewis Hamilton International Driver of the Year at the recent Autosport Awards.
"The English never miss a chance to demonstrate their lack of sportsmanship," he said. "The best car is the one that wins, and that's the Ferrari."
Edited by stockhatcher on Thursday 20th December 12:19
stockhatcher said:
it gets worse
taken from autosport
This statement is false, as was shown in the FIA evidence and testimony. taken from autosport
Ferrari paragons of integrity said:
"At the hearing McLaren came with 200 signatures of managers saying they never had access to the information.
"Then, three months later, when the FIA did its verifications, it was demonstrated that was completely false. They went corrupting their own personnel to make them sign false documentation.
"Then, three months later, when the FIA did its verifications, it was demonstrated that was completely false. They went corrupting their own personnel to make them sign false documentation.
Ferrari paragons of integrity said:
"If Ferrari didn't come up with certain proof we knew we had, it would have ended up with nothing, and McLaren would have got away with it."
They "knew" that they had it, but they could not be bothered to present it at the first hearing? Is that even remotely plausible?Ferrari paragons of integrity said:
Di Montezemolo was quoted by Repubblica as saying that his low point of the season was in July, when McLaren were not punished despite having been found to have Ferrari documents in their possession.
Oh yes, and, on the question of principle, we all recall how eloquently Ferrari spoke out against Renault's possession of McLaren IP.Three-Card Monte said:
"The English never miss a chance to demonstrate their lack of sportsmanship," he said. "The best car is the one that wins, and that's the Ferrari."
If there is any organisation on this earth that has no right to offer an opinion on sportsmanship...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64451
Small French Turds are really difficult to get rid of OR Shut Up!
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff