The facts...McLaren/Ferrrari/FIA

[rude-boy]

2priestsferrari said:

Sadly McLaren had to be held to account. This has nothing to do with the drivers but with the engineering side of McLaren and sadly they got caught.

I have sympathy with much of the rest of your post but when the finger can only be pointed at two drivers (one of who is the long term test driver and the other has gone on record as saying his input has been the basis of 0.6seconds per lap and one designer you can't really divorce their guilt.

[jesusbuiltmycar]

2priestsferrari said:

Ultimately the company is responsible for its employees - without which you could set them off on illegal errands and when they get caught just deny everything and claim they were acting on their own.

I thought that Stepney was one of ferraris employees??? So how come they are not accountable for his actions?

[2priestsferrari]

rude-boy said:

2priestsferrari said:

Sadly McLaren had to be held to account. This has nothing to do with the drivers but with the engineering side of McLaren and sadly they got caught.

I have sympathy with much of the rest of your post but when the finger can only be pointed at two drivers (one of who is the long term test driver and the other has gone on record as saying his input has been the basis of 0.6seconds per lap and one designer you can't really divorce their guilt.

Sure but sadly in order to get the information the FIA have given immunity for the drivers and so nothing can be done later and as I said before if you only deal with the individual then you don't deter teams taking dodgy info in the future.

[2priestsferrari]

jesusbuiltmycar said:

2priestsferrari said:

Ultimately the company is responsible for its employees - without which you could set them off on illegal errands and when they get caught just deny everything and claim they were acting on their own.

I thought that Stepney was one of ferraris employees??? So how come they are not accountable for his actions?

Well they are but it was Ferrari making the complaint and I'm sure he will be dealt with in Italy in due course.

What would you expect to happen? Ferrari docked all their points for giving their technical stuff to McLaren?

[NightDriver]

2priestsferrari said:

jesusbuiltmycar said:

2priestsferrari said:

Ultimately the company is responsible for its employees - without which you could set them off on illegal errands and when they get caught just deny everything and claim they were acting on their own.

I thought that Stepney was one of ferraris employees??? So how come they are not accountable for his actions?

Well they are but it was Ferrari making the complaint and I'm sure he will be dealt with in Italy in due course.

What would you expect to happen? Ferrari docked all their points for giving their technical stuff to McLaren?

But the FIA's reason for the punishment was for damaging the image of the sport. If Mclaren should take full responsibility for their rogue employees then Ferrari should have to take full responsibility for their own rogue employee.
Ferrari bosses would not have allowed the transfer of the info just as much as the Mclaren bosses (RD in particular) wouldnt have wanted to receive the information.

Edited by NightDriver on Tuesday 18th September 14:07

[rude-boy]

2priestsferrari said:

What would you expect to happen? Ferrari docked all their points for giving their technical stuff to McLaren?

Let's face it the only difference between what NS (as a representative of his team) did and the Maclaren 3 is one gave the info, the others used it.

[flemke]

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

Depends on what that person was engaged with. If for instance a team paid an FIA official for items that he would get in his duty then it would be as bad.

If a team paid an employee of a rival team then it would be as bad - possibly worse because there was a kind of malice afore thought..

However if that person was no longer employed...

[flemke]

2priestsferrari said:

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

Depends on what that person was engaged with. If for instance a team paid an FIA official for items that he would get in his duty then it would be as bad.

If a team paid an employee of a rival team then it would be as bad - possibly worse because there was a kind of malice afore thought..

However if that person was no longer employed...

So it's okay for Ferrari to use whatever information that Nicholas Tombazis brought with him from McLaren, and it's okay for Red Bull to use whatever information Adrian Newey and Peter Prodromou brought with them from McLaren?

[10 Pence Short]

I note that around half the fine imposed on McLaren will be redistributed to the other teams.

[flemke]

10 Pence Short said:

I note that around half the fine imposed on McLaren will be redistributed to the other teams.

It is interesting - to the best of my knowledge, in most court cases, when the judge imposes a fine, he himself does not receive the money.

[10 Pence Short]

I also note that the public noises coming from the FIA are dampening down speculation about Renault, when they practically set alight the evidence about a certain other team recently 'prosecuted'.

[Marki]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

There you go

[2priestsferrari]

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

flemke said:

2priestsferrari said:

Of course what you describe is part of the game but passing the material that was passed is not. There is a huge difference between photo in the pit lane and huge volume of internal secrets that got passed and used, as evidenced by the emails between De la Rosa and Alonso.

Would you say that it would be as bad, or worse, if a team paid someone to give them inside information about a competitor?

Depends on what that person was engaged with. If for instance a team paid an FIA official for items that he would get in his duty then it would be as bad.

If a team paid an employee of a rival team then it would be as bad - possibly worse because there was a kind of malice afore thought..

However if that person was no longer employed...

So it's okay for Ferrari to use whatever information that Nicholas Tombazis brought with him from McLaren, and it's okay for Red Bull to use whatever information Adrian Newey and Peter Prodromou brought with them from McLaren?

Of course because they had left the employ of their respective teams and they have old knowledge. That is for the employeer to have a contract that excludes them from working - just like in many industries...

[Nick_F]

How on earth are McLaren to prove to the satisfaction of the FIA that the car they present for 2008 is 'all their own work'?

The FIA have already demonstrated that they won't accept the word of McLaren engineeers to that effect, so what are the FIA going to do? Give the car to Ferrari and ask if there's anything they recognise on it?

[aeropilot]

rude-boy said:

In my company all 3 would have had their P45’s on the desk before the sun had set.

Although not a McLaren fan, I do admire RD, but I feel his standing, integrety wise in this would have been higher had he done exactly this.
Unless of course contractually and via sponsors insistance he has been 'forced' to allow FA/DLR to continue.....which is probably about right for F1.

[jacobyte]

2priestsferrari said:

jacobyte said:

2priestsferrari said:

The facts...

2priestsferrari said:

what McLaren did was a disgrace and there is no way to deal with them any differently.

If you actually read points 8.4 and 8.5 of that document, you will see how incomprehensibly unfair the whole thing was.

Essentially they are saying "We have no evidence against McLaren, but we don't actually need any evidence. In fact, McLaren don't even need to have done anything wrong at all, so as we are above the law, we can do what we like."

Given your post all it shows is you like to take things out of context!

What the FIA are saying is that they don't need to prove that (as example) McLaren used a Ferrari front wing design and proved a performance advantage - because what the FIA are saying is that merely knowing and trying something which perhaps they can use in the design of there own stuff or perhaps it didn't work so that short cuts a process is enough. Plus with the simulator at McLaren being very accurate who knows what they have tried??

The context is there for all to see. I feel you are missing the point.

No matter; more facts will certainly be bounced around here tomorrow when the transcript is released. I'm sure you have already rehearsed your lines.

[2priestsferrari]

Not at all. If you can't see that the FIA came down hard on McLaren to stop the spread of this kind of thing to others then what more is to say!

Flemke then goes on to try and align it to the employment of ex-engineers but of course it is totally different.

If this isn't industrial spying (can't spell espionage!) then please explain what is..

[jesusbuiltmycar]

2priestsferrari said:

Not at all. If you can't see that the FIA came down hard on McLaren to stop the spread of this kind of thing to others then what more is to say!

Flemke then goes on to try and align it to the employment of ex-engineers but of course it is totally different.

If this isn't industrial spying (can't spell espionage!) then please explain what is..

had it been the other way round (ferrari using mclarens IPR) there would of been no case to answer...

[flemke]

2priestsferrari said:

Not at all. If you can't see that the FIA came down hard on McLaren to stop the spread of this kind of thing to others then what more is to say!

Flemke then goes on to try and align it to the employment of ex-engineers but of course it is totally different.

If this isn't industrial spying (can't spell espionage!) then please explain what is..

It's totally different because:

- when the information left Ferrari, it was because one of their employees gave it away to another team, but,
- when the information left McLaren, it was because their competitors paid money to attract McLaren people and the inside McLaren knowledge that they could bring with them.

So it's wrong to accept something that's volunteered to you for no quid pro quo, but fine to pay someone to bring (a lot more of) it to you?


You spelled "espionage" fine.
The FIA have fallen very far short of having proved anything. As jacobyte points out, the FIA have admitted that their "evidence" is very incomplete, and their standard of proof far below that of a proper court.
In contrast, we do know that earlier this year two guys were convicted by a proper court, and given prison sentences, for having secured and abused confidential Ferrari information whilst they were Toyota employees.
That would be industrial espionage, and if anyone is wondering whether Mosley has a double standard, he need look no further than at the fact that Toyota suffered no penalty whatsoever for the criminal acts of those employees, whilst McLaren, which had a fraction as much culpability, were crucified for acts that appear to have been entirely immaterial to the season's results.