2021 Cost Cap Breaches

2021 Cost Cap Breaches

Author
Discussion

heebeegeetee

27,937 posts

232 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.



jm doc

2,357 posts

216 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
And no one had to prove that athletes KNOWINGLY took performance enhancing drugs

deadslow

7,493 posts

207 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.



MarkwG

4,187 posts

173 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.
Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...

PhilAsia

2,227 posts

59 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
NRS said:
What is the FIA quote about Ferrari and the fuel flow "incident" they had? Whatever was agreed in the end clearly had a big negative effect on their performance, but Ferrari never cheated or broke the rules according to the FIA. I guess that was an accident too?

RB clearly did it accidently. It's well known teams will skip practice sessions and pit stop practices in F1 for example, as practices give you no advantage. It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too. Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
This 100%....or 100.3% if you're RBR or E&Y... thumbup

deadslow

7,493 posts

207 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.
Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...
no, not like that at all.

Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

The FIA/RB process has been open and honest. What part of it do you not understand? It seems like a very straightforward accounting disagreement, which is not at all uncommon.

Stirred up, of course, by Wolff and his FIA plant, into a frenzy. He should write for the Daily Mail. hehe

garyhun

33,490 posts

212 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
MadCaptainJack said:
NRS said:
So what do you call breaking the rules?
We call it a breach of the rules. We don't call it cheating unless it was done deliberately and dishonestly. The FIA has made it crystal clear that "there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information".

Therefore, RBR didn't cheat.

We've already been through this multiple times. You, jasandjules, and PhilAsia are just trolling now.

Stop it.
Glad you had inside knowledge that it was not deliberate. Take a look at Masi/AD/FIA decision for more of the same.
The mad captain is either a troll extraordinaire or a deluded fan. He’s obviously wrong whatever the case.

PhilAsia

2,227 posts

59 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions........like RB could have with cost cap practice. Capisci??

Without the knowledge I have now given you, you were just inadvertently ignorant, just as RBR were when they were offered the opportunity to be clever and use the cost cap practice.


NRS said:
RB clearly did it accidently. It's well known teams will skip practice sessions and pit stop practices in F1 for example, as practices give you no advantage.( biggrin ) It's perfectly understandable they'd skip the cost cap practice year too.rofl Of course that was ABSOLUTELY NOT because it would allow them to plead innocence on grey areas, because no one had flagged those particular ones to the FIA in the practice year...!
Not getting through...wall too thbangheadick!!


Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09

MarkwG

4,187 posts

173 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.

There was no cheating.
Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...
no, not like that at all.

Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

The FIA/RB process has been open and honest. What part of it do you not understand? It seems like a very straightforward accounting disagreement, which is not at all uncommon.

Stirred up, of course, by Wolff and his FIA plant, into a frenzy. He should write for the Daily Mail. hehe
Far more than you it seems: Red Bull fought from the get go, why do you think the March deadline was pushed to October? Why else the drip feed of misinformation all summer. Open & honest, don't make me laugh - opaque & disingenuous, more like. Honest would be admitting they won by breaking the rules, but we all know that won't happen. You seek to blame Mercedes & their former employee without a shred of evidence, whereas the evidence against Red Bull is finally in the public domain. Those who have a moral compass know exactly where the problem lies.

defblade

6,887 posts

197 months

Thursday 24th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
Sorted this one some time ago: the FIA absolutely did not say that which you state as unequivocal facts.

defblade said:
MadCaptainJack said:
FIA said:
"there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration."
RBR made a financial submission in good faith based on their understanding of the financial regulations. They weren't dishonest, and they didn't seek to conceal any information. While they may have been subsequently adjudged to have interpreted the rules incorrectly and/or made mistakes that resulted in them exceeding the cap, none of that means that they acted unfairly.
The FIA's statement has been worded very carefully.
Accusations can be made... or not, by choice.
Evidence can be looked for, considered, recognised... or not, by choice.

I'm afraid that the FIA's statement there makes a nice political sound, but upon careful consideration leaves no-one any the wiser and doesn't properly support or deny either view of the matter. Which is, I'm sure, exactly what they intended.

PhilAsia

2,227 posts

59 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
MarkwG said:
deadslow said:
heebeegeetee said:
deadslow said:
well, you may recall the FIA, who, unlike ourselves, possess all the facts, stated unequivocally that RB had been open, transparent and honest, obviously validating RB's assertion. Them's just the facts, lads. Sorry about that. smile
We don't know they're the facts, we only know what we've been told. Neither parties are especially trust worthy in my opinion.

Pleading ignorance is possibly the oldest defence in the book.

It is difficult to prove that RB deliberately cheated, but they've gamed the system imo and thus will be seen as cheats to a great many.
but no-one pleaded ignorance. They claim to have acted in good faith, and within the rules. The FIA state the same, ie RB were honest and truthful.
There was no cheating.
Yeah, just like Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman... methinks you protest too much...
no, not like that at all.
Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
The FIA/RB process has been open and honest. What part of it do you not understand? It seems like a very straightforward accounting disagreement, which is not at all uncommon.
Stirred up, of course, by Wolff and his FIA plant, into a frenzy. He should write for the Daily Mail. hehe
Far more than you it seems: Red Bull fought from the get go, why do you think the March deadline was pushed to October? Why else the drip feed of misinformation all summer. Open & honest, don't make me laugh - opaque & disingenuous, more like. Honest would be admitting they won by breaking the rules, but we all know that won't happen. You seek to blame Mercedes & their former employee without a shred of evidence, whereas the evidence against Red Bull is finally in the public domain. Those who have a moral compass know exactly where the problem lies.
I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket... wink

MadCaptainJack

581 posts

24 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket... wink
You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.

It's clear from deadslow's post that he knows exactly why he got a parking ticket.

PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions.......
I am quite certain that this inability to understand why RBR didn't cheat follows on from the inability to comprehend written English. biggrin

PhilAsia

2,227 posts

59 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
MadCaptainJack said:
PhilAsia said:
I am quite certain that this inability to understand what is happening in F1 follows on from the inability to comprehend why he got a simple parking ticket... wink
You seem to be the one with reading comprehension issues.

It's clear from deadslow's post that he knows exactly why he got a parking ticket.

PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions.......
I am quite certain that this inability to understand why RBR didn't cheat follows on from the inability to comprehend written English. biggrin
You clearly are not clearly clear on whether dead s l o w is clear or not. He stated "wheel (literally) one inch on the zig zag". I made it clear, although not clearly clear enough for you to be clear, that the bodywork should not overhang the zig zag. Clear?? Probably not...

What were you saying about English comprehension? biggrin


Edited by PhilAsia on Friday 25th November 11:42

deadslow

7,493 posts

207 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions........like RB could have with cost cap practice. Capisci??

Without the knowledge I have now given you, you were just inadvertently ignorant, just as RBR were when they were offered the opportunity to be clever and use the cost cap practice.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.

NotFussed

15 posts

102 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
You clearly are not clearly clear on whether dead s l o w is clear or not. He stated "wheel (literally) one inch on the zig zag". I made it clear, although not clearly clear enough for you to be clear, that the bodywork should not overhang the zig zag. Clear?? Probably not...

What were you saying about English comprehension? biggrin


Edited by PhilAsia on Friday 25th November 11:42
Yeah so basically the car was quite a bit over and not literally just the wheel on the zig zag.

I do wonder if those that keep staying it is clear RB did not game the system would be quite as vocal to support Merc as an example if it were them. As they clearly seem to be vocal about its all Merc infiltrating the FIA and causing the issues and not RB themselves.

NotFussed

15 posts

102 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.
But you did as you would have seen it and then moved the car to ensure it was legal.

deadslow

7,493 posts

207 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
NotFussed said:
deadslow said:
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.
But you did as you would have seen it and then moved the car to ensure it was legal.
no, I was sitting in the car in an almightly downpour in Glasgow. I didn't really check, as I thought I was ok, but no problem with the ticket.

Penalty, but no crime/no intent.

BigBen

11,154 posts

214 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.
Now imagine you had an assistant with you whose job was solely to make sure you didn't break the rules. Now the analogy works.

PhilAsia

2,227 posts

59 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
deadslow said:
PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions........like RB could have with cost cap practice. Capisci??

Without the knowledge I have now given you, you were just inadvertently ignorant, just as RBR were when they were offered the opportunity to be clever and use the cost cap practice.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.
Clearly you did not know that with one inch of wheel on the zig zag you had "LITERALLY" one inch of wheel plus a further one foot(ish) MORE OF BODYWORK hanging illegally over the zig zag.

"...I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking...."

Comprehension is not your best subbangheadject, is it?





deadslow

7,493 posts

207 months

Friday 25th November
quotequote all
PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
PhilAsia said:
deadslow said:
I was once found to have broken a rule. I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking. The rozzers stopped and gave me a £60.00 reminder to be more careful. I do not consider myself to be a criminal, nor to have tried to gain any unfair/illegal advantage. I just broke a rule, inadvertently.
You clearly do not know the rule. No bodywork should overhanging the parking restriction. With knowledge you can make informed decisions........like RB could have with cost cap practice. Capisci??

Without the knowledge I have now given you, you were just inadvertently ignorant, just as RBR were when they were offered the opportunity to be clever and use the cost cap practice.

Edited by PhilAsia on Thursday 24th November 18:09
I know the rule fine, chap wink

I parked my car illegally. I did not intend to do so, and did not consider that I had done so. But turns out I had, so paid a fine. The End. It's not complicated.
Clearly you did not know that with one inch of wheel on the zig zag you had "LITERALLY" one inch of wheel plus a further one foot(ish) MORE OF BODYWORK hanging illegally over the zig zag.

"...I parked my car, but the rear wheel was (literally) one inch on a zig zag. I was not aware of this and had no intention of mis-parking...."

Comprehension is not your best subbangheadject, is it?
no need to go out of your way to be unpleasant, chap. No-one is having a pop at you.