What if 'McLaren' are found innocent in a proper court?
Discussion
jacobyte said:
Lojohn
Flemke has put forward some very clear and unbiased information, but if I may also repond:
You make me laugh Mate!! "Flemke" "clear and unbiased" in the same sentence?? Very interesting - remember you are judged by the company you keep!
Can you point me to the lap time comparisons they did in the back-to-back tests? No? That's because they didn't happen.
McL personnel created a long and traceable audit trail of text and voice interaction with Stepney - clearly proving industrial espionage on a continuous, systematic basis - when you argue with these facts you look a fool.
Here I conceed - it may have been fruitless to go back to FIA court having been found guilty - but most informed people agree that McL got off lightly for the scale and quality of the information received - I believe Ron agrees and hence did not protest.Flemke has put forward some very clear and unbiased information, but if I may also repond:
You make me laugh Mate!! "Flemke" "clear and unbiased" in the same sentence?? Very interesting - remember you are judged by the company you keep!
lojohn said:
jacobyte said:
there was no evidence that they:
a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari
a) We have seen copies of emails where Alonso asked De La Rosa to ask Coughlan to ask Stepney details about weight distribution and tyre-air - and to make sure he gets the answer urgently - before the next McLaren test. How would that count not as "gained competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari"???a) gained a competitive advantage from being given information by Ferrari
lojohn said:
So?? Alonso was asking for illicit info because he thought it would help his / McL laptimes - that was not a mistake - it was espionage. Referring to the 'red car' does not make his question innocent. There was a clear intent, repeated dozens of times to break the spirit and the letter of FIA law and certainly English law. Did McL gain a competitive advantage? Yes, continuously and measurably, from the moment they used the flexing floor inside info to hobble the Ferrari's fantastic start to their year.
Why do you say that McLaren brought the sport into disrepute? How can you measure that? The truth is - Ferrari gave McLaren information and vice versa. It was Ferrari that kicked up a huge stink, leaked confidential information to the press, and Mosley who allowed an illegal appeal. McLaren guilty? You're having a larry.jacobyte said:
b) brought the sport into disrepute
b) F1 has never been brought into disrepute as much as this year by McLaren. In fact the only thing McLaren are champions of this year is "bringing the sport into disrepute" - no doubt.McL personnel created a long and traceable audit trail of text and voice interaction with Stepney - clearly proving industrial espionage on a continuous, systematic basis - when you argue with these facts you look a fool.
lojohn said:
The evidence is so firm that Ron never even argued his $100m fine - and he would have if he had any moral position of strength, I am sure of that.
No - Ron knew full well that an appeal would be fruitless. If Mosley could force through a $100 fine with no evidence, then such an appeal would make their penalty worse. It was not a court hearing, it was a prep school headmaster's arbitrary punishment, and you simply do not argue with the headmaster. What Max would have given for them to appeal, eh?! For the record, I believe that Ron himself is innocent of wrongdoing, however his staff were (understandably perhaps) driven for success to the point they took info as it was offered, and Ron is paying the price.
PS Sorry about the formatting -
Edited by lojohn on Sunday 4th November 10:28
lojohn said:
Here I conceed - it may have been fruitless to go back to FIA court having been found guilty - but most informed people agree that McL got off lightly for the scale and quality of the information received - I believe Ron agrees and hence did not protest.
"...most informed people agree that McL got off lightly..."?
These would be most of the informed residents of Maranello, Italy?
You may want to familiarise yourself with "most of" the comments that have been made by numerous racing people around the world (and many of those people made their critical comments despite the fact that they are still exposed to the FIA and thus vulnerable to it).
lojohn said:
jacobyte said:
Flemke has put forward some very clear and unbiased information, but if I may also repond:
You make me laugh Mate!! "Flemke" "clear and unbiased" in the same sentence?? Very interesting - remember you are judged by the company you keep!An opinion based on sentiment, propinquity, or self-interest is a bias.
An opinion based on evidence and historical reality is a conclusion.
lojohn said:
but most informed people agree that McL got off lightly for the scale and quality of the information received
I totally disagree with that. In this months MotorSport magazine, Nigel Roebuck writes: "One hundred million dollars.The figure reverberated around the world, and not only in the sports bulletins and pages. Not only was it, in any sane world, a draconian punishment, but also a tacky one: 'Our sport is so awash with money that even our fines are bigger and better...'That much was undeniable. As someone pointed out, following the 1999 Paddington rail crash in which many lives were lost, Railtrack were fined £4,000,000."
I would say that most - all except Max possibly - informed people believe the punishment to be simply staggering. Jackie Stewart is as informed as they come, and has argued eloquently about it. Max's informed and eloquent response was to call Stewart a certified halfwit.
Another point - i believe that McLarens info on Ferrari's illegal floor (which has won them the championship) came verbally from Stepney, the document came after.
It is Max and the FIA who has brought the sport into disrepute, Max has virtually lost control of it. Even at the very last race there were cars found running illegally and the FIA chose to do nothing about it, so now protests have been filed etc. How can you turn a blind eye to 3 cars finishing in the top 6 of a GP being found to be in contravention of the rules? Its absurd. Furthermore, given Max's comments that McLaren were treated leniently, where does that leave the lack of punishment levied against the teams operating illegally in Brazil?
And also - i believe that historically, there has never been any overlap between cases being decided by the FIA AND the civil courts, it has always been one or the other. For reasons not explained there is now this overlap. The court case should be interesting though, because if the civil courts decide that McLaren has not benefited in any way from the document, where does that leave the FIA's draconian punishment? The court may even decide that just because there's been one or two loose cannons operating within the team, this alone does not justify punishing the team as an entitiy.
If the civil court doesn't apply a punishment it would show the FIA in very bad light indeed. It seems the FIA have really taken a chance on this one, which doesn't seem very professional, or the FIA are very confident that the case in Italy will go their way.
Edited by Heebeegeetee on Sunday 4th November 11:41
lojohn said:
jacobyte said:
Flemke has put forward some very clear and unbiased information
You make me laugh Mate!! "Flemke" "clear and unbiased" in the same sentence?? lojohn said:
Alonso was asking for illicit info because he thought it would help his / McL laptimes - that was not a mistake - it was espionage. Referring to the 'red car' does not make his question innocent. There was a clear intent, repeated dozens of times to break the spirit and the letter of FIA law and certainly English law.
If you read the transcripts in full you will realise that the communications you allude to were pretty much irrelevant. We know Alonso had his own agenda, but drivers ask for info in exactly the same way to that, day in and day out. It doesn't make it illegal or disreputable, particularly if you compare it with Toyota's punishment-free actions.lojohn said:
Did McL gain a competitive advantage? Yes, continuously and measurably, from the moment they used the flexing floor inside info to hobble the Ferrari's fantastic start to their year.
You mean the flexible floor that one of Ferrari's own employees told the FIA about before the first race of the season? Let's not go 'round in circles again on this one. lojohn said:
McL personnel created a long and traceable audit trail of text and voice interaction with Stepney - clearly proving industrial espionage on a continuous, systematic basis - when you argue with these facts you look a fool.
If that is what you believe, then it instantly makes Ferrari equally to blame as McLaren. Why weren't Ferrari punished?lojohn said:
PS Sorry about the formatting -
It's a pain, this quoting malarkey, isn't it?!jacobyte said:
zaktoo said:
"Yes, your honour, I stole 100 pounds, but I didn't spend it."
"Very well, acquitted!"
Maybe in your wet dreams.
Translation:"Very well, acquitted!"
Maybe in your wet dreams.
"Yes, your honour, someone in our company was willingly handed 100 pounds by someone else and we immediately suspended him pending investigation"
"In that case you're fined 100,000,000 dollars"
Definitely in reality.
We immediately suspended our man who handed over the 100 quid, but we still kept the cash.
Conian said:
Yes your honour, someone in our company was willingly handed 100 pounds which was stolen by some else, we knew it was stolen, some of us saw it but didnt tell any one, some of us saw it then pretended that we hadn't, but none of us willingly tried to return it to the rightful owners or tell the police about it. We did tell the police when when of our children asked us for more pocket money and threatened to dob us in if we didnt cough up.
We immediately suspended our man who handed over the 100 quid, but we still kept the cash.
In what way, then, does your version of McL's behaviour differ from the accepted everyday morals of the modern British population?We immediately suspended our man who handed over the 100 quid, but we still kept the cash.
Conian said:
jacobyte said:
zaktoo said:
"Yes, your honour, I stole 100 pounds, but I didn't spend it."
"Very well, acquitted!"
Maybe in your wet dreams.
Translation:"Very well, acquitted!"
Maybe in your wet dreams.
"Yes, your honour, someone in our company was willingly handed 100 pounds by someone else and we immediately suspended him pending investigation"
"In that case you're fined 100,000,000 dollars"
Definitely in reality.
We immediately suspended our man who handed over the 100 quid, but we still kept the cash.
"Yes, your honour, someone in our company was willingly handed 100 pounds in forged notes, which were stolen by a third party from his employers, who had printed the notes in order to supplement their turnover. He handed over the money to us after he had tried but failed to get the attention of the police. We had another way of getting the police's attention, which was successful, although this did not result in the forgers' being punished or even prosecuted, only in their being told not to do it again.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff