Ferrari/McLaren Espionage Story [merged] [Archive] - Page 3

Racehound

18th July 2007, 18:06

Yes, but the key is how good that defence is. The Spanish FIA steward is in the same position as we are at the moment...he "thinks" but doesn't know.
and Joaquin Verdegay is a Fernando fan as well as his compatriot!!!!!....Verdegay is talking bo!!ackos coz he doesnt want to see Fernando chucked out while hes chasing his 3rd straight title, and neither do I.......i wanted to see FA win this year and shut a few people up when he overhauled Lewboy in the points!!!!!.....but that scenario is looking decidedly shaky at the moment from what i can see!!!!......stepney wants to name names to clear himself......ahhhh.....how very nice of him.......hes even admitted to emptying his pockets the idiot!!!!!!!!!....he shoulda said he was getting some money out or scratching his dick or something!!!!...anything else other than admit he was "emptying " his pockets of some "powder" that he didnt know where it came from!!!!!!!......Coughlans sworn affadavit allegedly states that John Neale and others at McLaren have seen the Ferarri "intellectual property"...........that means they are S-T-U-F-F-E-D!!!...Even if wRONg Dennis hasnt seen this material, the fact that it is in the posession of his chief designer leaves poor old wRONg up sh!t creek without a paddle!!!!! :( read the TIMES online and read what madmax has already stated as to whether the team and drivers can be seperated from each other as far as any sanctions or punishment is concerned!!!!)....old max is already lifting the hammer and if you read between the lines it is already clear he is maneuvering himself into a position whereby whatever punishment is meted out it will come as no surprise to ANY of us except McLaren!!!!!!....whether stepney and coughlan intended to pool their respective knowledge and take it to Honda at a later date is all pie in the sky; the FACT is that coughlan has been caught with Ferarris data and he is (was) a senior member of McLaren, so thats the situation max is looking at!!!!! for coughlan to put McLaren in such a compromising position after they were doing so well this season is complete madness and totally unforgivable imo!!!!!!....i hope they nail his nuts to the wall and watch him bleed to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the mans a moron!!!!!!!

Racehound

18th July 2007, 18:44

well, if Ferrari believe that they had nothing to do with it and a representitve of the FIA giving pre-disclosure that it looks like they are in the clear, then would McLaren have to put up a defence to NO CASE TO ANSWER.
flat....this is f1 youre talking about!!!!.....even if Ferarri thought McLaren were totally innocent of any wrongdoing, they wouldnt say so!!!!!!!!!!!!.....they would most likely INSIST that McLaren were involved anyway!!!!....and as for Verdegay and his "pre-disclosure", he is only giving his thoughts on the matter as it stands at the moment!!!.....its like poison pixie saying last week that FA and LH will not be docked points !!!!!.....ecclestone should stop shooting his mouth off about any verdicts or punishments dished out by the fia, because it is nothing to do with him!!!!!...he is not on the board of the fia, he is this supposed "supremo" we keep being told!!!!!!he runs the commercial side of FOA, and the FOM, tho hes supposedly sold most of his controlling interest to some consortium or other(i cant recall the name atm), but he obviously kept his foot in the door enough that we have to keep seeing and hearing the little creep!!!!!!!....as the championship stands at the moment, Ferarri would like nothing in the world MORE than to see their biggest rivals eliminated from this season!!!!!! at the end of the day it is all about winning!!!!.....2nd is first of the losers!!!!!!!!!!

Racehound

18th July 2007, 18:59

Why did it take them from March/April until July to take "appropriate" action????? That's my question. Coughlan admits showing the documents to several McLaren employees. Even if they didn't want anything to do with this, why did it take several months to suspend him and "cooperate fully" when they should have blown the whistle on him immediately if they wished to maintain their "integrity."

It is the delay in action that casts serious doubts on McLaren's statements of innocence and integrity. :(
and this post needs reading again!!!!!!...... :) ...........so true!!!!!!!!!!!

Racehound

18th July 2007, 19:19

Looks like Mclaren is going to tighten their own noose. They are saying no one else was told about the documents at Mclaren, even though Coughlen already has a sworn statement saying that he did. They also have the problem about asking about rules clarifications for some things that seemed to be related to Ferrari design specs.
exactly!!!!!......and wasnt it BEFORE the Australian gp that McLaren were requesting clarification on Ferarris "flexible floor".??????........max has already put 6 and 9 together and come up with 69!!!!!!! :dozey: ........i thought it was 15 but what do i know???!!!!............only Ferarri had this innovation on their 07 car, so how could McLaren be seeking clarification on a technical issue concerning a Ferarri before the first race of the season, when this design feature would have most likely imo still have been top secret!!!!!! i dont doubt for 1 second that wRONg is totally innocent , but it is coughlans actions that have undermined his team and put them in this ludicrous position... :eek:

ioan

18th July 2007, 19:23

[B]
Also, according to FIA steward Joaquin Verdegay:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60887

Again this ****head? Man, you completely ruined my day.

18th July 2007, 19:30

and wasnt it BEFORE the Australian gp that McLaren were requesting clarification on Ferarris "flexible floor".??????...................only Ferarri had this innovation on their 07 car, so how could McLaren be seeking clarification on a technical issue concerning a Ferarri before the first race of the season, when this design feature would have most likely imo still have been top secret!!!!!!

Look, I'm a big Ferrari fan so it may come as a surprise that I'm defending Mclaren, but......

It's not unusual for a team to protest, or in this case enquire as to the legality of, another teams car at the first race of the season.....

Ferrari did just that in 1998 with Mclaren's 4 pedal set-up.

Protesting the Ferrari floor doesn't prove anything.

It's highly likely that the FIA will not find any evidence of Mclaren using the Ferrari designs on their own car., but that is actually a side issue.......the real issue is how long did Mclaren's management know that Coughlan had the Ferrari designs before they suspended him.

If it really was a case of the Mclaren management only finding out on the morning they suspended him, then they are in the clear.

If, however, there was any sort of delay.....they are fecked.

gm99

18th July 2007, 19:55

Again this ****head? Man, you completely ruined my day.

Still not over it that he was among the stewards at Monaco in '06 who stripped Schuey off his pole position?

Ian McC

18th July 2007, 21:13

If these guys are guilty, even under oath, do we honestly expect them to tell the truth? I expect that they will want to pass blame and drag others into it.

If they are innocent then I doubt we will get any sort of straight answer.

Whatever, it should be interesting :D

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 00:23

............ for coughlan to put McLaren in such a compromising position after they were doing so well this season is complete madness and totally unforgivable imo!!!!!!....i hope they nail his nuts to the wall and watch him bleed to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the mans a moron!!!!!!!

Man!! you are cruel!! :(
I hope you're not into M&M. :(

Racehound

19th July 2007, 01:24

Man!! you are cruel!! :(
I hope you're not into M&M. :(
why thx Valve.......always nice to receive a compliment :) .......and i didnt even mention floppin his dick in a cup of bleach!!!!!.......nah.....more Carlos Santana....ac/dc.....pinkus floydus......eddie van halen......and lots of other sh!te.......... :cool: i play a bit o lead btw, so most of my music is pretty much axe orientated.... :s mokin:

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 01:29

why thx Valve.......always nice to receive a compliment :) .......and i didnt even mention floppin his dick in a cup of bleach!!!!!.......nah.....more Carlos Santana....ac/dc.....pinkus floydus......eddie van halen......and lots of other sh!te.......... :cool: i play a bit o lead btw, so most of my music is pretty much axe orientated.... :s mokin:

Look!! you want to torture the guy, play Bing Crosby!! :eek:

Racehound

19th July 2007, 01:33

Look!! you want to torture the guy, play Bing Crosby!! :eek:
or Cliff Richard!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dozey: ........cor ......hed be trying to kill himself for sure!!!!!!

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 01:39

Racehound

19th July 2007, 04:49

Hey!! I like Cliff Richard :)
It is very interesting about Bing Crosby though - whenever large bunches of youths gathered outside a Mall and the Mall managers wanted them to move on, they would put on Bing Crosby and the cool dudes would move away very quickly. This is true!!

But the ultimate torture would have to be Nelson Eddie and Janette MacDonald singing Indian Love Call endlessly.
you are not going to believe this, but they did exactly the same thing here in the UK!!!!! :eek: with cliff richard songs!!!!....thats why i said it!!!!....they had a lot of youths hangin around a city centre, so the police tried an experiment playing cliff r and des o connor songs, and all the kids cleared off!!!! :) hmmm, methinx we are all lab rats to the governments in 1 way or another!!!! :s mokin:

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 05:36

Another interesting titbit: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32145
It seems that nobody in McLaren who Coughlan told about the documents wanted to see them or have anything to do with them. He was told to destroy them, which would have been the end of the whole sorry episode, the way I see it.

Now there are different opinions as to McLaren's culpability. Supposing if someone at boarding school came up to me and said he had cigarettes and would I want one, and I said No! I am not interested - just go and destroy them. Now without ever seeing them, could I be held to blame if I didn't go to the headmaster and tell him that Johnny Smokey had cigarettes? I might add that in my day, having cigarettes at a boarding school was more serious than Coughlan having Ferrari plans. :(

Yes!! I went to a Christian Brothers Boarding School. :(

The stupidest part, and something that will probably absolve McLaren is the fact that Coughlan sent his wife Trudy on that stupid errand to copy the documents at the local copy shop. It can easily be argued that if McLaren had used the plans in some way, they would have copied the documents themselves.

Now it remains to be revealed how Coughlan got to be in possession of the Ferrari plans.

Personally, I don't want McLaren to be thrown out of this competition - it would be like the repeat of Indianapolis 2005 all over again if they were. The biggest losers would be the fans - both Ferrari and McLaren fans, especially as I expect Kimi to win the WDC and Ferrari to win the WCC this year.

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 05:47

...............and here's Fernando's take on the whole saga. :http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3262_2501428,00.html

Enjoy!!

Hawkmoon

19th July 2007, 06:07

The stupidest part, and something that will probably absolve McLaren is the fact that Coughlan sent his wife Trudy on that stupid errand to copy the documents at the local copy shop. It can easily be argued that if McLaren had used the plans in some way, they would have copied the documents themselves.

Actually Valve, I don't think it does absolve McLaren. How do we know that Coughlan didn't make copies of the document for McLaren using the McLaren copier and then send Trudy down to the local Xerox Shop to make a copy for himself that he could take to his Honda meeting without McLaren's knowledge? If he's trying to jump ship to Honda I'm sure he doesn't want ol' Ron knowing about it.

Ah, conspiracy theories. Don't ya love 'em!

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 06:43

Actually Valve, I don't think it does absolve McLaren. How do we know that Coughlan didn't make copies of the document for McLaren using the McLaren copier and then send Trudy down to the local Xerox Shop to make a copy for himself that he could take to his Honda meeting without McLaren's knowledge? If he's trying to jump ship to Honda I'm sure he doesn't want ol' Ron knowing about it.

Ah, conspiracy theories. Don't ya love 'em!

Because he would have pressed the 2 button instead of the 1 button. :rolleyes:

wmcot

19th July 2007, 08:17

The Spanish FIA steward is in the same position as we are at the moment...he "thinks" but doesn't know.

But the point is - should a person who is supposed to judge a case give ANY opinion before the case is heard? Right or wrong, he should be thrown off the council that will hear the case as he has already stated a biased opinion.

In the legal system he would automatically be dismissed if he was a judge or a juror due to prejudice. This must be seen as a fair hearing regardless of the outcome!

ArrowsFA1

19th July 2007, 08:29

But the point is - should a person who is supposed to judge a case give ANY opinion before the case is heard?
Do we know for sure he will be on the FIA panel? He may have just been asked his opinion of the case by a journalist, and as taburello has said he "thinks" but doesn't know...like the rest of us.

p.s. strangely, this particular story seems to have been taken off the Autosport website :crazy:

ArrowsFA1

19th July 2007, 08:41

It was a quiet weekend in the Formula 1 world with not much happening beyond more leaks in Italy regarding what was in Mike Coughlan's affadavit. It seems that this has been leaked to members of the Italian media by Ferrari- ostensibly the only people in Italy who have the document - although it may only be the parts that Ferrari wants the media to know.

Manipulating the press is all the rage at the moment in F1 circles but it might be wistest for all concerned if they either stopped leaking details and got on with the legal processes or made the affadavit available to the public. That way they will all avoid the suspicion that they are trying to use the information to create as much damage as possible to the opposition
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19406.html

Flat.tyres

19th July 2007, 12:42

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19406.html

more than just the wheels spinning in Italy :D

ArrowsFA1

19th July 2007, 13:07

Here's a question:

Why would Mike Couglan show "the document" to McLaren team members if the reason he had it was as part of a planned move to another team :confused:

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 13:18

Here's a question:

Why would Mike Couglan show "the document" to McLaren team members if the reason he had it was as part of a planned move to another team :confused:

Maybe he wanted some of them to join him at another team. Who knows? Maybe he was just being stupid.

F1MAN2007

19th July 2007, 13:30

Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't understand the reason why Couglan had to make a copy of the full document?

Was he looking to send copies to someonelse or he wanted just to keep a copy in case the original document may disapear?

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 13:40

Maybe he was making copies from the Discs? But why he needed a hard copy is something that I can't understand either.

F1MAN2007

19th July 2007, 13:45

Maybe he was making copies from the Discs? But why he needed a hard copy is something that I can't understand either.

If he had to pay something to get a copy, of course the hard copy should be the deal!!! Just to make sure that he has everything with him?!

Racehound

19th July 2007, 16:09

...............and here's Fernando's take on the whole saga. :http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3262_2501428,00.html

Enjoy!!
hey valve....theres a few earlier letters from Fernando to "Pedro".......ive read them but i still havent worked out how to post links yet coz i use my pc mostly for gaming,,,but theyre hilarious, even tho its takin the p!55 in a mild way.....i like the "lewis is a secret gangsta rappa when nobody else is in earshot" twist to the plot :) .....its as good as the "Ronspeak" posts on Atlas F1 forum!!!!.....at least we all still got our sense of humour about f1, despite some of the events takin place!!!....and pino.....i would argue that my posts are NOT "personal attacks" against ANYONES personal opinions on this forum, and i read as many as i can on all the different topics posted here;....ok....so sometimes i feel it necessary to post the odd swear word now and then because as a motor racing enthusiast talking about instances that could mean life or death for the participants in the actual "sport" we are talking about, i think it is my right to offer an opinion on behalf of my personal favourite driver. (iput a full stop there to shorten this sentence for you)...can i post your private message for all to see????....i dont know as im a pc gamer and dont really know too much how to use my pc for this application!!!!! but you state my sentences are too long, so im trying to comply!!.....i like the fact that an italian is more aware of english grammar than i am tho, despite my boarding school education and having spent 47 years living in England!!!!....i do neglect to put capital letters where they belong and i do not use colons or semi-colons where i should,because as you know, Europe is constantly changing during this period of cultural and migratory evolution, so i do not expect the majority of people from abroad to fully understand the intricacies of the English language!!!!. anyway....im not 1 to argue, and i have work to do atm, but we shall obviously cross swords at a later date, as i want to post your private message for a topical discussion as to what kind of post constitutes crossing the boundaries between being informative and compliant ,or what kind of posts are offensive and belligerent; and i have read the posts between flat and garry and the ensuing "debate" posted under the other topic ....and i do at least disguise my swearing with punctuation symbols, altho im not sure yet that anybody reading these posts is likely to be under 16 years of age and not already familiar with any "colourful" language that i might use!!!!....and i would be very interested to know at the very least your date of birth, if that is not being too presumptious!!!!....thx :)

Racehound

19th July 2007, 16:30

Look, I'm a big Ferrari fan so it may come as a surprise that I'm defending Mclaren, but......

It's not unusual for a team to protest, or in this case enquire as to the legality of, another teams car at the first race of the season.....

Ferrari did just that in 1998 with Mclaren's 4 pedal set-up.

Protesting the Ferrari floor doesn't prove anything.

It's highly likely that the FIA will not find any evidence of Mclaren using the Ferrari designs on their own car., but that is actually a side issue.......the real issue is how long did Mclaren's management know that Coughlan had the Ferrari designs before they suspended him.

If it really was a case of the Mclaren management only finding out on the morning they suspended him, then they are in the clear.

If, however, there was any sort of delay.....they are fecked.
Nobody had a clue about the McLaren "tractor brakes" until a photographer who was standing trackside by coldturds car when it broke down at Spa/Monza????(i cant remember which), jumped over the barrier and took a photo looking down into the cockpit and noticed the split brake pedal after they developed the photo!!!!!!!.....this could have been from a dc tip off to 1 of his photographer mates, coz dc knows plenty of them i can tell you!!!and he knew thinmgs were getting hot in a McLaren seat when he kept fai8ling to deliver any decent results!!!!....McLaren stood still while couldturd was there!!!!how do you think schumi won 5 titles on the trot????....

pentti

19th July 2007, 17:09

Pitstop.com reports today that McLaren also copied Ferrari 2006 nicking Vodafone stickers!

ioan

19th July 2007, 20:19

No one posted this yet:

Nigel Stepney emailed McLaren's chief designer Mike Coughlan on the eve of the season to tip him off about Ferrari's movable floor design, this week's Autosport magazine reveals.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60908

wmcot

19th July 2007, 20:21

Do we know for sure he will be on the FIA panel? He may have just been asked his opinion of the case by a journalist, and as taburello has said he "thinks" but doesn't know...like the rest of us.

p.s. strangely, this particular story seems to have been taken off the Autosport website :crazy:

According to PitPass he is one of 26 members who will sit in judgment of the case.

Link:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32143

ioan

19th July 2007, 20:39

Ah and there is this part too:

McLaren will face an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council next week to face charges of 'fraudulent conduct' over the possession of secret Ferrari documents from March to July this year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60908

Ian McC

19th July 2007, 21:05

a reliable source has revealed

Seems to be a lot of them around at the moment

donKey jote

19th July 2007, 21:30

hey valve....theres a few earlier letters from Fernando to "Pedro".......ive read them but i still havent worked out how to post links yet coz i use my pc mostly for gaming,,,but theyre hilarious, even tho its takin the p!55 in a mild way.....i like the "lewis is a secret gangsta rappa when nobody else is in earshot" twist to the plot :) .....its as good as the "Ronspeak" posts on Atlas F1 forum!!!!.....at least we all still got our sense of humour about f1, despite some of the events takin place!!!....and pino.....i would argue that my posts are NOT "personal attacks" against ANYONES personal opinions on this forum, and i read as many as i can on all the different topics posted here;....ok....so sometimes i feel it necessary to post the odd swear word now and then because as a motor racing enthusiast talking about instances that could mean life or death for the participants in the actual "sport" we are talking about, i think it is my right to offer an opinion on behalf of my personal favourite driver. (iput a full stop there to shorten this sentence for you)...can i post your private message for all to see????....i dont know as im a pc gamer and dont really know too much how to use my pc for this application!!!!! but you state my sentences are too long, so im trying to comply!!.....i like the fact that an italian is more aware of english grammar than i am tho, despite my boarding school education and having spent 47 years living in England!!!!....i do neglect to put capital letters where they belong and i do not use colons or semi-colons where i should,because as you know, Europe is constantly changing during this period of cultural and migratory evolution, so i do not expect the majority of people from abroad to fully understand the intricacies of the English language!!!!. anyway....im not 1 to argue, and i have work to do atm, but we shall obviously cross swords at a later date, as i want to post your private message for a topical discussion as to what kind of post constitutes crossing the boundaries between being informative and compliant ,or what kind of posts are offensive and belligerent; and i have read the posts between flat and garry and the ensuing "debate" posted under the other topic ....and i do at least disguise my swearing with punctuation symbols, altho im not sure yet that anybody reading these posts is likely to be under 16 years of age and not already familiar with any "colourful" language that i might use!!!!....and i would be very interested to know at the very least your date of birth, if that is not being too presumptious!!!!....thx :)

Would it be too presumptious to ask you to press "enter" once instead of "." 4 times ? :p :
It might save a little effort on both sides :)

Easy Drifter

19th July 2007, 22:08

Monty Python to the rescue.

Valve Bounce

19th July 2007, 23:32

Elvis, it's Elvis; trust me!!

Racehound

19th July 2007, 23:58

exactly!!!!!......and wasnt it BEFORE the Australian gp that McLaren were requesting clarification on Ferarris "flexible floor".??????........max has already put 6 and 9 together and come up with 69!!!!!!! :dozey: ........i thought it was 15 but what do i know???!!!!............only Ferarri had this innovation on their 07 car, so how could McLaren be seeking clarification on a technical issue concerning a Ferarri before the first race of the season, when this design feature would have most likely imo still have been top secret!!!!!! i dont doubt for 1 second that wRONg is totally innocent , but it is coughlans actions that have undermined his team and put them in this ludicrous position... :eek:
.......... :dozey: sorry guys :eek: ....just thought i would repost 1 of my posts from YESTERDAY! after just reading the latest Autosport news linked by ioan in message 524 :cool:

Racehound

20th July 2007, 00:07

Would it be too presumptious to ask you to press "enter" once instead of "." 4 times ? :p :
It might save a little effort on both sides :)
....sorry donkey..i dont have a clue what you mean about pressing enter 4 times!!!!...did i do something wRONg??????? :cool:

Racehound

20th July 2007, 00:16

According to PitPass he is one of 26 members who will sit in judgment of the case.

Link:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32143
and he was 1 of the panel who sat in judgement at Monaco 06 as ioan is well aware :eek: .....not in your good books is he after his verdict in the quali :dozey:

Hendersen

20th July 2007, 04:34

and he was 1 of the panel who sat in judgement at Monaco 06 as ioan is well aware :eek: .....not in your good books is he after his verdict in the quali :dozey:

That guy needs to be removed from his position in the FIA. As a guy that's suppoed to be an impartial judge of events, he goes into this meeting claiming that he thinks Mclaren will only get a minor reprimand and that "proving they copied parts from the ferrari will be hard". Uhh, can you get more stupid? There are dozens of ways to use the ferrari information without "copying their design" and only an idiot would copy their design as it becomes instantly easy to prove that the part was copied! Biased morons have no place on the panel. I'd like to know how he "proved" that schumacher purposely parked it up in monaco. What a complete and total moron.

Valve Bounce

20th July 2007, 05:23

Agreed!! let's go shoot out his kneecaps.

wmcot

20th July 2007, 08:17

and he was 1 of the panel who sat in judgement at Monaco 06 as ioan is well aware :eek: .....not in your good books is he after his verdict in the quali :dozey:

Hey, I'm not ioan!!! I don't care about Monaco 2006! I don't care what the guy's personal opinion is, I don't even care what the outcome of the hearings and trials are, I'm just saying that it is improper to state your opinion on ANY case you will be deciding. It doesn't matter whether it's in a court of law or a hearing of the FIA or your local city council! If you state your opinion BEFORE hearing the case, that's called prejudice. Those hearing the evidence in any case should be open-minded and not lean to one side or the other until AFTER they hear the FACTS (and ALL OF THEM!)

I wouldn't want to sit on trial in a court of law and have one of the jurors give an opinion about my case before the case was even heard!

We all expect the tabloid press to make judgments one way or the other and even those involved to make statements regarding their innocence or the guilt of the other party, but we don't need those who are doing the judging to express an opinion on the case before the proper proceedings begin.

I'm not commenting on Ferrari, McLaren, Stepney, Coughlan, etc. I'm commenting on improper judicial procedure!

ArrowsFA1

20th July 2007, 08:35

Ah and there is this part too:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60908
A couple of things about this...if true then Coughlan was given info about the floor on the Ferrari. It wasn't stolen, or discovered by illegal means. It was given to him. The only thing anyone is possibly guilty of is a Ferrari employee who passed on 'trade secrets'.

Secondly, if there was a question about the legallity of the floor then what is wrong with anyone raising the issue with the FIA? Should we condone a potential breaking of the rules simply because of where the information comes from, or is an illegal floor an illegal floor regardless?

MAX_THRUST

20th July 2007, 08:42

Forgive me Ferrari fans but it is the same every year when Ferrari are on the back foot, there is always some accusation, or complaint about another team, or some dodgy rulling that Ferrari never gets done for but everyone else does. Is the FIA that scared of upsetting Ferrari???

Anything to get points knocked off the other teams......I just had to get that off my chest. Thanks I won't post on here again.

Valve Bounce

20th July 2007, 10:28

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 10:58

That guy needs to be removed from his position in the FIA. As a guy that's suppoed to be an impartial judge of events, .......

sorry fella but if he was an impartial judge, he would not be qualified to be in the FIA :D

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 11:03

A couple of things about this...if true then Coughlan was given info about the floor on the Ferrari. It wasn't stolen, or discovered by illegal means. It was given to him. The only thing anyone is possibly guilty of is a Ferrari employee who passed on 'trade secrets'.

Secondly, if there was a question about the legallity of the floor then what is wrong with anyone raising the issue with the FIA? Should we condone a potential breaking of the rules simply because of where the information comes from, or is an illegal floor an illegal floor regardless?

it strikes me as strange that IF TRUE, people arent picking up on this point.

someone at Ferrari blows the whistle that they are using an illegal floor to McLaren, Mclaren do the right think and ask the FIA to clarify which they do, the floor is outlawed and the situation resolved.

now, the people that want Mclaren hung, drawn and quartered because Mikle was their employee and they are responsible for his actions should also be calling for Ferrari to be penalised for the ALLEDGED illegal conduct of their employee and that they were attempting to field a componant contrary to the rules.

now, I personally think this is all a load of horse sh*t but before you all jump up and down throwing stones, look at the glass house youre hiding behind first ;)

20th July 2007, 13:04

A couple of things about this...if true then Coughlan was given info about the floor on the Ferrari. It wasn't stolen, or discovered by illegal means. It was given to him. The only thing anyone is possibly guilty of is a Ferrari employee who passed on 'trade secrets'.

Secondly, if there was a question about the legallity of the floor then what is wrong with anyone raising the issue with the FIA? Should we condone a potential breaking of the rules simply because of where the information comes from, or is an illegal floor an illegal floor regardless?

Brilliant logic.............just a shame it's not from this planet.

The Ferrari floor, like Renault's Mass-Damper that you defended last year, was legal until the FIA changed the regulations.

However, stealing 'trade secrets' is a crime....as is receiving stolen 'trade secrets'.

Honestly Arrows, even as a Ferrari fan I'm hoping that Mclaren's lawyers/advisors are better than you at trying to get them off!

SGWilko

20th July 2007, 13:26

Brilliant logic.............just a shame it's not from this planet.

The Ferrari floor, like Renault's Mass-Damper that you defended last year, was legal until the FIA changed the regulations.

No, thats not the case.

The Ferrari floor was able to pass the FIA tests, proving that it ought not be able to flex. However, it was designed in a way to flex under a load greater that in the FIA tests. That is against the spirit of the rules, is it not? And, moreover, if it can flex in excess of the tolerances laid down in the rulebook, it is thus illegal.

I have yet to see a safe testing facility that allows an FIA delegate to measure the floor while the car is travelling at 190mph...... :D

The MD in the Renault was only deemed Illegal because someone in the FIA labelled it a 'moveable aerodynamic device'.

I mean, just how can a device, tucked out of the airflow inside the vehicle be aerodynamic?

Just to give you an idea of the oik that is Charlie Whiting, the Chauffeur here in the office used to fit sunroofs for the garage one BE used to work at with Charlie. Charlie was so chuffing inept, they did not even trust him to do the MOT's.

And look what he is doing now.......

20th July 2007, 13:30

ArrowsFA1

20th July 2007, 14:06

Brilliant logic.............just a shame it's not from this planet.
No, the shame is the need to dismiss anyone's view in this way :rolleyes: although it is easier to explain away a complex situation with oneliners than to discuss and debate.

Honestly Arrows, even as a Ferrari fan I'm hoping that Mclaren's lawyers/advisors are better than you at trying to get them off!
I have no wish to try to get anyone "off", as you put it. What I would like to see is a discussion about what is, after all, a major news story in F1.

At present the only "charge" McLaren have been summoned to answer (by the FIA) is that they "had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, including information that could be used to design, engineer, build, check, test, develop and/or run a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car."

The "charge" itself raises more questions, none of which any of us have the answers to, and yet it appears that many have decided that McLaren are guilty of something/anything/everything and should be kicked out of F1.

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

icsunonove

20th July 2007, 14:11

20th July 2007, 14:15

No, the shame is the need to dismiss anyone's view in this way :rolleyes: although it is easier to explain away a complex situation with oneliners than to discuss and debate.

I have no wish to try to get anyone "off", as you put it. What I would like to see is a discussion about what is, after all, a major news story in F1.

At present the only "charge" McLaren have been summoned to answer (by the FIA) is that they "had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, including information that could be used to design, engineer, build, check, test, develop and/or run a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car."

The "charge" itself raises more questions, none of which any of us have the answers to, and yet it appears that many have decided that McLaren are guilty of something/anything/everything and should be kicked out of F1.

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

I notice you haven't attempted to defend your logic, which is hardly discussing and debating either so get off the high horse.

Not once have I said that Mclaren are guilty, just that the charges against them are not easily dismissed with half-baked and incorrect statements as to what crime has potentially taken place.

Nor have I said you are wanting to get Mclaren 'off'....just that your argument is piss-poor.

I therefore stand by the statement that your logic is not of this planet and it's to be hoped Mclaren have a better line of defence.

If you want to take offence, then that is your perogative. Of course, if you could debate and discuss with a better line of argument, then you wouldn't be putting yourself in a position whereby someone could fire off a one-liner, but again, that is your choice.

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 14:35

Brilliant logic.............just a shame it's not from this planet.

The Ferrari floor, like Renault's Mass-Damper that you defended last year, was legal until the FIA changed the regulations.

However, stealing 'trade secrets' is a crime....as is receiving stolen 'trade secrets'.

Honestly Arrows, even as a Ferrari fan I'm hoping that Mclaren's lawyers/advisors are better than you at trying to get them off!

sorry, Im struggleing a bit with your interplanetary logic here ;)

You seem to be mistaking legality with finding ways to get around testing. The moving floor was illegal but Ferrari constructed it in such a way as to fudge it through testing forcing the FIA to revise their regulation on testing. i can think of 2 very similar situations in recent history other than the ones quoted. Michelin had a tyre that was legal when measured (at the beginning of the GP) but afterwards exceeded the original tyre specifications and was subsequently outlawed towards the end of the season. At the time, Ferrari were struggleing but after Michelin had to redesign the tyre, Ferrari won the championship.

Honda had a fuel tank that conformed to the regulations although the FIA president publicly called them cheats before the case. this was apparently squealed on by some ex employees and the FIA sprung a bit of a trap. I have no doubts that Honda were trying to fudge the rules a bit but half the other teams were doing the same but Honda got the rap. Banned for 2 races.

Ferrari should consider themselves lucky that they got away with it :D

now, for your "receiving trade secrets" bit. Can you provide a link of exactly what secrets they received?

I understood that it was an email but did it have specific plans or was it a tip off for them to look at something dodgy? I dont know and neither do you so its a bit silly to claim someone is or isn't guilty without holding a scap of evidence. as it stands, it looks like Mike received some information pertaining to a team trying to enter a car that contravened the regulations, which it did, and they informed the FIA to ask for clarification. The FIA investigated and deemed that it did not conform to the regulations but did to the testing procedures so they modified them to take into account Ferraris inginuity the same as they did with Honda and Michelin.

Valve Bounce

20th July 2007, 14:50

20th July 2007, 15:04

sorry, Im struggleing a bit with your interplanetary logic here ;)

You seem to be mistaking legality with finding ways to get around testing. The moving floor was illegal but Ferrari constructed it in such a way as to fudge it through testing forcing the FIA to revise their regulation on testing. i can think of 2 very similar situations in recent history other than the ones quoted. Michelin had a tyre that was legal when measured (at the beginning of the GP) but afterwards exceeded the original tyre specifications and was subsequently outlawed towards the end of the season. At the time, Ferrari were struggleing but after Michelin had to redesign the tyre, Ferrari won the championship.

Honda had a fuel tank that conformed to the regulations although the FIA president publicly called them cheats before the case. this was apparently squealed on by some ex employees and the FIA sprung a bit of a trap. I have no doubts that Honda were trying to fudge the rules a bit but half the other teams were doing the same but Honda got the rap. Banned for 2 races.

Ferrari should consider themselves lucky that they got away with it :D

now, for your "receiving trade secrets" bit. Can you provide a link of exactly what secrets they received?

I understood that it was an email but did it have specific plans or was it a tip off for them to look at something dodgy? I dont know and neither do you so its a bit silly to claim someone is or isn't guilty without holding a scap of evidence. as it stands, it looks like Mike received some information pertaining to a team trying to enter a car that contravened the regulations, which it did, and they informed the FIA to ask for clarification. The FIA investigated and deemed that it did not conform to the regulations but did to the testing procedures so they modified them to take into account Ferraris inginuity the same as they did with Honda and Michelin.

On Planet Earth, contacting a rival with information about your employees designs is breaking the terms and conditions of your contract, which is a legally binding document.

Recieving information from a member of another team who has broken his contract to give you that information is in breach of FIA sporting regulations and is, in itself, breaching the terms of employment with your team because of that, not to mention that you are complicit in industrial espionage which carries both sporting and judicial penalties

With regard to "You seem to be mistaking legality with finding ways to get around testing", something that passes the test, like the Michelin tyres you're trying to be smart with, is legal.

What it does away from the test is not illegal because there is no way of verifying it's illegality. All that can be done is that the rules regarding the item in question is changed/re-interpreted by the scrutineers and a new policy of enforcement brought in which cannot be back-dated.

Neither Michelin nor Ferrari were told they were illegal when they used the tyres and floor respectively, just that future use of the parts in question would be considered to be illegal within the new interpretation of the regulations.

Which is just the same as the Mass-Damper issue of last year.

Hopefully the next time you enter the earths atmosphere, that information will be of some assistance.

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 15:08

The Honda case was rather different. I remember seeing a sketch of the system with it's special return valve to the hidden tank. This system allowed a car to qualify at lower than regulation weight, and run every stint except the last one on a lower fuel load than other cars, and run lighter towards the end of stints except the last one. If I remember correctly, during the weighing after the race, Honda was asked if the tank was empty and they said yes. The stewards then tipped the car up and more fuel was drained from the car. However, this did not prove, at any stage, that the car was in fact running light at any stage during quals or the race.
The FIA then got Honda for using fuel as a ballast. Not sure if any other teams had such a system.
I think this is correct, unless my Alzeimer has already kicked in tonight. :(

not bad. the fuel tank was legal and the car was over the minimum weight when measured. for the tank to work properly, the scav needed fuel in so the likelyhood that they ran it down to that was minimal. what they could do was run it a dead weight with fuel in the scav which they claimed we immovable as it was sealed and if you drained it, the car would stop.

I thought they got them on a technicality of not being able to prove that the car always confirmed to minimum weight as no electronic data could be used in evidence.

most of us thought Honda were hung out to dry because others were using a similar arrangement from the same firm that supplied the Honda system. this is something that is impossible to prove but I would point you to the last Ferrari stop of the race where Schumy came in a lap or two after button and took on more fuel. ring any bells? ;)

if you want my opinion, Max was furious that they tried to pull the wool over his eyes and he was going to get his pound of flesh no matter what the evidence said. it also helped quash the Manufacturers threatened breakaway by getting Honda to tow the line.

ArrowsFA1

20th July 2007, 15:14

I notice you haven't attempted to defend your logic...
Just to be clear, my post in question was in relation to the Autosport report about Stepney emailing Couglan details of Ferrari's flexi-floor. That said...Can we agree that, if the allegations are true, Stepney is guilty of passing trade secrets to Coughlan? There was certainly no Watergate-style break in by McLaren employees to Maranello to get this information after all.

Why Stepney sent such an email, what Coughlan subsequently did with it, and whether McLaren gained a sporting advantage from it is the subject of speculation.

Nor have I said you are wanting to get Mclaren 'off'...

I'm hoping that Mclaren's lawyers/advisors are better than you at trying to get them off!I agree. You didn't say that exactly.

If you want to take offence, then that is your perogative.
Thanks for the offer. I'll think about it.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to answer the question I asked of you.

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

Racehound

20th July 2007, 15:22

That guy needs to be removed from his position in the FIA. As a guy that's suppoed to be an impartial judge of events, he goes into this meeting claiming that he thinks Mclaren will only get a minor reprimand and that "proving they copied parts from the ferrari will be hard". Uhh, can you get more stupid? There are dozens of ways to use the ferrari information without "copying their design" and only an idiot would copy their design as it becomes instantly easy to prove that the part was copied! Biased morons have no place on the panel. I'd like to know how he "proved" that schumacher purposely parked it up in monaco. What a complete and total moron.
id go with that too!!!......they can use the information they have simply to undermine Ferarris effort on the track, rather than try to copy or utilise any of the Ferarri plans !!!! and 1 way to utilise that knowledge might be seeking clarification on a floor design nobody else has, BEFORE the first race of the season!!!! :cool:

Racehound

20th July 2007, 15:23

Agreed!! let's go shoot out his kneecaps.
he he !!!! :s mokin:

Racehound

20th July 2007, 15:30

No, thats not the case.

The Ferrari floor was able to pass the FIA tests, proving that it ought not be able to flex. However, it was designed in a way to flex under a load greater that in the FIA tests. That is against the spirit of the rules, is it not? And, moreover, if it can flex in excess of the tolerances laid down in the rulebook, it is thus illegal.

I have yet to see a safe testing facility that allows an FIA delegate to measure the floor while the car is travelling at 190mph...... :D

The MD in the Renault was only deemed Illegal because someone in the FIA labelled it a 'moveable aerodynamic device'.

I mean, just how can a device, tucked out of the airflow inside the vehicle be aerodynamic?

Just to give you an idea of the oik that is Charlie Whiting, the Chauffeur here in the office used to fit sunroofs for the garage one BE used to work at with Charlie. Charlie was so chuffing inept, they did not even trust him to do the MOT's.

And look what he is doing now.......
ill repost 1 i did earlier if i can find it about why the mass damper was deemed a "moveable aerodynamic device".......

Flat.tyres

20th July 2007, 15:55

ill repost 1 i did earlier if i can find it about why the mass damper was deemed a "moveable aerodynamic device".......

I may be sinking into premature old age and getting mixed up again but wasn't the final reason they fudged it, sorry, deemed it illegal, that if developed firther, it had the opportunity to become, in effect, a twin chassis?

ioan

20th July 2007, 15:58

Assuming someone is guilty, and then looking for "evidence" to support that "guilt" is hardly the right way to go about things. Or do you not agree?

If the prosecutors would assume people not guilty in crime cases than they would not search for evidence and there will be no case and thus no crime, however this clearly isn't the way things happen, and that's why there are guilty people behind the bars.

ArrowsFA1

20th July 2007, 16:14

icsunonove

20th July 2007, 16:40

The Honda case was rather different. I remember seeing a sketch of the system with it's special return valve to the hidden tank. This system allowed a car to qualify at lower than regulation weight, and run every stint except the last one on a lower fuel load than other cars, and run lighter towards the end of stints except the last one. If I remember correctly, during the weighing after the race, Honda was asked if the tank was empty and they said yes. The stewards then tipped the car up and more fuel was drained from the car. However, this did not prove, at any stage, that the car was in fact running light at any stage during quals or the race.
The FIA then got Honda for using fuel as a ballast. Not sure if any other teams had such a system.
I think this is correct, unless my Alzeimer has already kicked in tonight. :(

Valve, I only mentioned the Honda incident to demonstrate the flaw in Tamburello's reasoning about trade secrets. As I said, my recollection is that Honda's system went undetected by the FIA until a tip-off from some ex-employees who had moved to a rival team. Tamburello claimed that the details of Ferrari's moveable floor were trade secrets and the passing and receiving trade secrets is illegal. Well, in that case the FIA should have punished the ex-honda guys and themselves (as recipients) because if Ferrari's floor was a trade secret then so was Honda's fuel tank.

20th July 2007, 20:47

If the prosecutors would assume people not guilty in crime cases than they would not search for evidence and there will be no case and thus no crime, however this clearly isn't the way things happen, and that's why there are guilty people behind the bars.

Grazie Ioan. That's saved me having to type it.

Once again, however, for the hard of hearing and those at the back of the class who have not been paying attention, I repeat....

I have not assumed or decided that Mclaren are guilty.

What I have said is that they need a better argument in their defence than the one's that have been offered as arguments on this forum.

20th July 2007, 20:55

Valve, I only mentioned the Honda incident to demonstrate the flaw in Tamburello's reasoning about trade secrets. As I said, my recollection is that Honda's system went undetected by the FIA until a tip-off from some ex-employees who had moved to a rival team. Tamburello claimed that the details of Ferrari's moveable floor were trade secrets and the passing and receiving trade secrets is illegal. Well, in that case the FIA should have punished the ex-honda guys and themselves (as recipients) because if Ferrari's floor was a trade secret then so was Honda's fuel tank.

Sorry, but the flaw is in your reasoning.

Tipping off the regulatory Sporting Authority is not the same as passing information to another team.

In the case of Honda, it was the former employee and not his new team who blew the whistle, so there is no issue of 'trade secrets'.

No-one is ever prosecuted for whistle-blowing if it is done through the correct channels, and much as Ron Dennis would no doubt love to be thought of as the correct channel, passing info to Mclaren is not the correct channel.

There is, therefore, no relation to the Honda fuel-tank situation and the current Stepneygate saga.

tinchote

20th July 2007, 21:47

Sorry ioan, perhaps "assuming" was the wrong word. "Deciding" would have been better, because I do think some have decided McLaren are guilty without being in possesion of the full facts. There are certainly plenty of theories and assumptions but those do not establish guilt.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right.

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.

It's funny to see people here using the "logic" that this year Ferrari's floor was deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, and this is called "Ferrari cheating"; and the same people calls the 2003 Michelin affair, in which the Michelin tyres were deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, "Ferrari cheating". Weird logic :s

Valve Bounce

20th July 2007, 23:50

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.

It's funny to see people here using the "logic" that this year Ferrari's floor was deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, and this is called "Ferrari cheating"; and the same people calls the 2003 Michelin affair, in which the Michelin tyres were deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, "Ferrari cheating". Weird logic :s

Sorry, but the great wanabee criminal lawyer in me has to point out that you are certainly incorrect in your stated scenario here. You will find such case to be reported that "the allegedly stolen goods were found in the possession the alledged perpetrator..." and he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, I am not so sure of the situation in France where he is presumed guilty unless proven innocent is anymore the case. Nevertheless, I have been assured by legal argument that the procedure is still much the same in the courts.

In China, of course, things are quite different, and he is a dead duck if arrested and is chucked in jail until somebody can come up with compensation for the injured party, or he is simply marched off into a paddy field, a bullet is inserted at great speed into the back of his head, and his family is sent the bill for said bullet.

Valve Bounce

20th July 2007, 23:52

What I have said is that they need a better argument in their defence than the one's that have been offered as arguments on this forum.

You are quite wrong here. My argument is impeccable - I have stated all along that it was Elvis. You will see that I will be proven correct.

ArrowsFA1

21st July 2007, 09:39

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.
True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

Other than photocopying 'the document' what did Coughlan do with it? Was it his intention to take it to Honda? If so why make other McLaren staff aware of it? Did he just make them aware of it and was told to destroy it, or did he make use of it to benefit McLaren? If so, how exactly? If so were his actions condoned by McLaren management?

Is this just a simple case of two men wanting to change jobs, and take their knowledge with them? Something similar happened in 1977 when members of the Shadow team planned to split away and create another GP team. The designer took his designs for the 1978 Shadow and made an Arrows instead, but a judge decided the designs belonged to Shadow so Arrows were made to design and build a completely new car.

This is all theories, speculation, guesswork, smoke and mirrors because we don't have the full facts. The FIA hearing on the 26th July may help in this respect, but there's still the Ferrari case against Stepney, and that may take a lot longer to resolve.

Hawkmoon

21st July 2007, 09:49

I'd love to see how this thread would have gone if it was Ferrari receiving McLaren documents and not the other way around.

I reckon the peasants would have well and truly revolted by now! :D

Valve Bounce

21st July 2007, 10:10

Hey!! why you calling me peasant?? You think I don't eat dim sim?? I very sophisticated land worker.

Ian McC

21st July 2007, 10:34

I'd love to see how this thread would have gone if it was Ferrari receiving McLaren documents and not the other way around.

I reckon the peasants would have well and truly revolted by now! :D

Oh there is plenty enough revolting to go round for everyone ;)

21st July 2007, 12:22

True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

"What if" is not a legal argument.

Again, the problem with your argument is that you seem to be forgetting that the court will judge if it is beyond reasonable doubt that Stepney is the man responsible.

It is not beyond reasonable doubt that Stepney has had a motive and an opportunity to do exactly what he is accused of.

In all legal systems, Motive and Opportunity are two of the major factors in deciding the innocence or guilt of the accused. They are currently not on Stepney's side.

Against that, and in the case of Stepney's defence, it is quite far fetched to believe that Ferrari would go to such elaborate, complicated and implausible lengths to set him up in this way.....it would have been much easier to put him on gardening leave.

Stepneys defence of claiming a 'conspiracy' against him is a very poor defence and one which the accused would have to provide evidence for whilst maintaining his integrity as a witness....something that, given his far-fetched claims so far and his on-record unhappiness regarding his position at Ferrari, is not easy to do.

The number of witness statements stating a different version of events make it even harder to accept his version.

The court, or the panel if it's the Sports authority, will have to give credence to the most believable version of events......which, at the moment, doesn't appear to be Stepney's.

tinchote

21st July 2007, 13:01

True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

Other than photocopying 'the document' what did Coughlan do with it? Was it his intention to take it to Honda? If so why make other McLaren staff aware of it? Did he just make them aware of it and was told to destroy it, or did he make use of it to benefit McLaren? If so, how exactly? If so were his actions condoned by McLaren management?

Is this just a simple case of two men wanting to change jobs, and take their knowledge with them? Something similar happened in 1977 when members of the Shadow team planned to split away and create another GP team. The designer took his designs for the 1978 Shadow and made an Arrows instead, but a judge decided the designs belonged to Shadow so Arrows were made to design and build a completely new car.

This is all theories, speculation, guesswork, smoke and mirrors because we don't have the full facts. The FIA hearing on the 26th July may help in this respect, but there's still the Ferrari case against Stepney, and that may take a lot longer to resolve.

The big question is whether this will really get to the bottom or it will be stopped somewhere along the way by some kind of agreement among parties, and in that case we'll never get to know what happened.

ArrowsFA1

21st July 2007, 16:01

"What if" is not a legal argument.
There's me thinking I was raising "what if's" to illustrate how easy it is to come up with theories and speculation when we don't have full knowledge of the facts, and all the time I was making a legal argument :eek:

Again, the problem with your argument is that you seem to be forgetting that the court will judge if it is beyond reasonable doubt that Stepney is the man responsible.
In your haste to pick fault you've forgotten my final paragraph. At the moment most of what we're dealing with here is mostly speculation. Hopefully the FIA hearing, and the Stepney court case, will produce a conclusion to this whole sorry saga.

In all legal systems, Motive and Opportunity are two of the major factors in deciding the innocence or guilt of the accused. They are currently not on Stepney's side.

Against that, and in the case of Stepney's defence, it is quite far fetched to believe that Ferrari would go to such elaborate, complicated and implausible lengths to set him up in this way.....it would have been much easier to put him on gardening leave.

Stepneys defence of claiming a 'conspiracy' against him is a very poor defence and one which the accused would have to provide evidence for whilst maintaining his integrity as a witness....something that, given his far-fetched claims so far and his on-record unhappiness regarding his position at Ferrari, is not easy to do.
All in your opinion, which may be well reasoned, but is still just one of many theories and opinions which have been aired since this story broke.

The big question is whether this will really get to the bottom or it will be stopped somewhere along the way by some kind of agreement among parties, and in that case we'll never get to know what happened.
I guess a 'deal' between the parties is a possibility. Even if this saga is seen to be concluded by the FIA hearing and the Stepney case, there is always going to be doubts and suspicions about what really went on.

icsunonove

22nd July 2007, 00:14

Sorry, but the flaw is in your reasoning.

Tipping off the regulatory Sporting Authority is not the same as passing information to another team.

In the case of Honda, it was the former employee and not his new team who blew the whistle, so there is no issue of 'trade secrets'.

No-one is ever prosecuted for whistle-blowing if it is done through the correct channels, and much as Ron Dennis would no doubt love to be thought of as the correct channel, passing info to Mclaren is not the correct channel.

There is, therefore, no relation to the Honda fuel-tank situation and the current Stepneygate saga.

I disagree (of course), the fact is that as former employees and would have signed contracts which specifically cover the situation of company confidential information when they left the company. So even though they had left Honda the information was Honda's and not theirs to pass on. Also, it is my understanding they tipped off their new team who in turn approached the FIA, unless you have a link to show otherwise.

You might use the term whistle-blowing had they still been employed by Honda and there was nothing to be gained by them personally in contacting the FIA.

wmcot

22nd July 2007, 08:57

I think McLaren should use the "Physics" defense in this case. According to quantum physics, there is a probability (infinitesimally small, mind you) that the documents in question could make sort of a "quantum leap" from Maranello to Coughlan's desk. Of course that would mean that Coughlan was lying about the courier unless he just assumed that a courier had delivered them without actually seeing the courier. I haven't quite worked out how they became packaged for shipment yet...

Then there's the "infinite parallel universes" defense which would mean that in some universes Coughlan never received the documents at all. There would also be some universes where Bernie is generous, good-looking and tall and always looks out for the interest of the fans (especially Elvis.)...

Then perhaps a wormhole opened momentarily between Maranello and Woking..........

wmcot

22nd July 2007, 08:59

ArrowsFA1

22nd July 2007, 10:00

I don't know about the laws in other countries, but in the USA, it is illegal to POSSESS stolen goods! It doesn't matter HOW you got them!
Fair enough :up: So Stepney (if it was he) is guilty of sending and Coughlan is guilty of receiving?

Meanwhile, Ron Dennis has commented on the leaks that have been dripped out from the affidavit submitted by Coughlan to Ferrari:

"First of all, probably few people really understand what the circumstances surrounding this process are. Or they certainly lack the understanding of the deeper implications of not adhering to the instructions of the court.
"The High Court ruling led ultimately to three recipients of Mike Coughlan's affidavit being told in no uncertain terms that it was privileged information, and that they would be committing a legal breach in the event of any of it being shared with third parties.
"I am quite sure the FIA understands the nature of the court order, so I can only assume the other parties who had this material have chosen to share distorted excerpts with other people.
"It is important to remember that at the end of the day it is the sworn statement of one individual in this affair, and as such, one would expect it to be the truth as he sees it. But we've not had any input in the process.
"Up until today I have not even acknowledged that Mike Coughlan is the suspended employee.
"There is a way to go through life and that is to follow the correct procedures. If other people choose to go down a different path that leads to the very damaging process where people have seen fit to spin and make derogatory remarks about the integrity of McLaren, fine. But that's not my style.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61020

Flat.tyres

23rd July 2007, 17:01

Fair enough :up: So Stepney (if it was he) is guilty of sending and Coughlan is guilty of receiving?

Meanwhile, Ron Dennis has commented on the leaks that have been dripped out from the affidavit submitted by Coughlan to Ferrari:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61020

Ron has always been a man of principles and Im glad he has taken a moral stance over this.

interesting article in the Independant.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/motor_racing/article2793044.ece

ioan

23rd July 2007, 21:30

Ron has always been a man of principles and Im glad he has taken a moral stance over this.

Well, he suspended Coughlan as soon as Ferrari knew about the affair, but not when Coughlan got the plans. Interesting "moral" stance.

Big Ben

23rd July 2007, 21:43

Well, he suspended Coughlan as soon as Ferrari knew about the affair, but not when Coughlan got the plans. Interesting "moral" stance.

you know for sure he knew about the documents because... you hate him?
You seem to know so much from your house... please tell us more

andreag

23rd July 2007, 22:56

you know for sure he knew about the documents because... you hate him?
You seem to know so much from your house... please tell us more
I second this. And, please, with a link to back your opinion.

wmcot

24th July 2007, 06:07

you know for sure he knew about the documents because... you hate him?
You seem to know so much from your house... please tell us more

I don't hate RD, in fact, I've learned to appreciate him more in the past couple of years from interviews and videos I've seen him in. I do enjoy kidding around about him, but that is only light-hearted. Saying that, I do find it really hard to believe that the first he heard of the documents was when Ferrari brought them to his attention! Do the people below him keep him that sheltered? It seems that several people knew of the documents, perhaps they fear RD so much they didn't dare approach him?

Before you accuse me of bashing RD, it's nothing personal. I suspect that any of the 11 teams that had the full documents of a competitor would be interested to see what "they know that we don't know." That's only human nature and Ron is human...really! (See what I mean about the kidding around...)

janneppi

24th July 2007, 06:51

I I do find it really hard to believe that the first he heard of the documents was when Ferrari brought them to his attention! Do the people below him keep him that sheltered? It seems that several people knew of the documents, perhaps they fear RD so much they didn't dare approach him?

It doesn't need to be fear, perhaps they thought it's better not to put Ron in a bad position, he would have to act or risk getting caught with pants down in his knees.
If he didn't know, he can't be as much in fault if they get caught.

Valve Bounce

24th July 2007, 07:01

It doesn't need to be fear, perhaps they thought it's better not to put Ron in a bad position, he would have to act or risk getting caught with pants down in his knees.
If he didn't know, he can't be as much in fault if they get caught.

One could suspect that if Ron found out about the documents, he would have fired whoever was involved on the spot.

If you knew your friend had a packet of cigarettes in boarding school, you wouldn't be running to the head prefect to tell him, would you?

Ian McC

24th July 2007, 08:03

ioan

24th July 2007, 09:17

If you steal something and had no intention of using it at your place of work (why else would you copy it at a shop in the high street) then you are not likely to go up to your work mates and say "Oi, you'll never guess what I've got my hands on!"

He was not going to copy them, he wanted those that were on paper to be transfered in digital format and I suppose he didn't have the time to do it himself (remember they say something about 700+ pages!).
Doing it at work means that there will be traces on their computers, something they didn't want too.

But that's not the FIA's problem. They want to know why Ron did nothing when supposedly his employees had and knew about the documents since March. Coughlan's affidavit gave the FIA many infos about the issue and Ron will have to explain everything now.

andreag

24th July 2007, 10:27

He was not going to copy them, he wanted those that were on paper to be transfered in digital format and I suppose he didn't have the time to do it himself (remember they say something about 700+ pages!).
Amazing. McLaren have a state of the art headquarters, but can't afford to hire secretaries, so their head engineers had to make all the paperwork themselves.

Doing it at work means that there will be traces on their computers, something they didn't want too.
And doing it outside means that there will be traces outside their computers, outside their control, where anyone else can reach it. This can be a person mistake, but never a company mistake (at least someone should have think of this and they would never do it).

But that's not the FIA's problem. They want to know why Ron did nothing when supposedly his employees had and knew about the documents since March.
Maybe because he was not aware any of his employees was in posession of those documents. Does anybody really think the head of a company like McLaren, who has demonstrate why he's there, can make so much stupid mistakes with such a dangerous matter.

If Ron Dennis (and McLaren) had his hands on those pages, the last thing they would do is sending one of his head engineers' wife to the local photocopies shop. It should be so simple to send someone to a new office with the neccesary equipment to do the job, without a trace.

Coughlan's affidavit gave the FIA many infos about the issue and Ron will have to explain everything now.
Coughlan has demonstrate he's an unloyal employee as he was thinking of leaving McLaren to Honda (taking some information with him at the same time). If he appears as the only guilty, doing that on his own benefit (with Stepney from the other side), he would never get a job at Honda, and he would never get a job anywhere else, having to face some years in jail.

His only defense is to put the blame on his boss, so he wouldn't be as guilty, demonstrating to be loyal, and having all the chances to jump clean over it.

Valve Bounce

24th July 2007, 10:52

He was not going to copy them, he wanted those that were on paper to be transfered in digital format and I suppose he didn't have the time to do it himself (remember they say something about 700+ pages!).
Doing it at work means that there will be traces on their computers, something they didn't want too.

.

Not really!! If the firm has the software Cyberscrub, which I have, they can erase all traces of anything deleted from their files and/or online evidence beyond any recovery procedure. Here's the link: http://www.cyberscrub.com/index.php

janneppi

24th July 2007, 11:16

If Ron Dennis (and McLaren) had his hands on those pages, the last thing they would do is sending one of his head engineers' wife to the local photocopies shop. It should be so simple to send someone to a new office with the neccesary equipment to do the job, without a trace.

Exactly, when the company can afford to spend 15 Million on a bloody Winnebago, issuing a room wth a lock on the door, buying a decent scanner and a computer which isn't connected to the network shouldn't be an issue, nothing Ferrari related would be leaked outside of that office room until it was "washed".

Valve Bounce

24th July 2007, 11:51

Exactly, when the company can afford to spend 15 Million on a bloody Winnebago, issuing a room wth a lock on the door, buying a decent scanner and a computer which isn't connected to the network shouldn't be an issue, nothing Ferrari related would be leaked outside of that office room until it was "washed".

.................or erased :p :

SGWilko

24th July 2007, 12:33

I reckon this whole thing was started on the request of Honda, who, desperate for technical staff promised astronomical sums of corrupting cash to Braun, Stepney and Cloughlan.

Of course, Stepney and Coughlan are now worthless, so Honda will get a real bargain!

Daniel

24th July 2007, 12:40

Not really!! If the firm has the software Cyberscrub, which I have, they can erase all traces of anything deleted from their files and/or online evidence beyond any recovery procedure. Here's the link: http://www.cyberscrub.com/index.php
So you think ;)

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 12:56

But that's not the FIA's problem. They want to know why Ron did nothing when supposedly his employees had and knew about the documents since March. Coughlan's affidavit gave the FIA many infos about the issue and Ron will have to explain everything now.

can you prove that employees of McLaren had knowledge of this document since March. can you even prove that Mike had the document in March please.

finally, can you tell us exactly what is on the affidavit because outside of the FIA, McLaren and Ferrari, you are the only one that has this knowledge apart from the bits that have been leaked to the Itallian media in a disgraceful media spin campaign that makes a mockery of any sort of justice in this case. I suppose it's Ron that leaked this info is it?

ioan

24th July 2007, 13:56

can you prove that employees of McLaren had knowledge of this document since March. can you even prove that Mike had the document in March please.

finally, can you tell us exactly what is on the affidavit because outside of the FIA, McLaren and Ferrari, you are the only one that has this knowledge apart from the bits that have been leaked to the Itallian media in a disgraceful media spin campaign that makes a mockery of any sort of justice in this case. I suppose it's Ron that leaked this info is it?

It's all in Coughlan's affidavit, and the FIA having been granted access to it summoned the McLaren team as soon as they've seen it, to asnwer why did they had the documents since March and did nothing about it!

You may b!tch about the Italian media as much as you like, that won't change what happened.

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 14:35

It's all in Coughlan's affidavit, and the FIA having been granted access to it summoned the McLaren team as soon as they've seen it, to asnwer why did they had the documents since March and did nothing about it!

You may b!tch about the Italian media as much as you like, that won't change what happened.

can you at least TRY to back up some of your posts :rolleyes:

what evidence are the FIA using in relation to these charges. it may very well be the affadavit as you claim but there may be other things. the affadavit is not supposed to have been disclosed and is a sworn legal statement so unless you can prove what is in it, then we only have the very selective passages that have allegedly been disgracefully supplied to the Itallian press.

are they genuine and used in isolation like this, do they provide a true and accurate picture?

when youve been around the game long enough, you soon learn to take anything written in the press with a pinch of salt and not quote it as facts as some people here do. even when you do hear something with your own ears, it generally is 90% rubbish and you have to sift out the 10% that might have some basis in truth.

ArrowsFA1

24th July 2007, 15:24

But that's not the FIA's problem. They want to know why Ron did nothing when supposedly his employees had and knew about the documents since March.
The reason for the FIA hearing on the 26th July is for McLaren representatives
...to answer a charge that between March and July 2007, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, including information that could be used to design, engineer, build, check, test, develop and/or run a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60729

That charge is a result of one McLaren employee, Mike Coughlan, having possession of those documents which in turn automatically means that the team as a whole is answerable to the FIA.

On that basis McLaren are in breach of the Sporting Code. However, I suspect that McLaren's argument is that Coughlan was acting alone, and in his own interests, and at no point were the documents in the possession of anyone else at McLaren.

ioan

24th July 2007, 15:51

The reason for the FIA hearing on the 26th July is for McLaren representatives
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60729

That charge is a result of one McLaren employee, Mike Coughlan, having possession of those documents which in turn automatically means that the team as a whole is answerable to the FIA.

Exactly.

On that basis McLaren are in breach of the Sporting Code. However, I suspect that McLaren's argument is that Coughlan was acting alone, and in his own interests, and at no point were the documents in the possession of anyone else at McLaren.

The trouble is that several team members knew about this breach of the sporting code but no one did anything to stop this and thus clean the teams name. Why is that?

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 16:02

The trouble is that several team members knew about this breach of the sporting code but no one did anything to stop this and thus clean the teams name. Why is that?

sorry, is this a fact or rumour?

as per your sig, please back that statement up.

ArrowsFA1

24th July 2007, 16:05

The trouble is that several team members knew about this breach of the sporting code but no one did anything to stop this and thus clean the teams name. Why is that?
That information has reportedly been leaked from Coughlan's affidavit (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60794)) which apparently says that all McLaren employees responded in the same manner, by distancing themselves from the documents and advising Couglan to destroy them.

Following that report McLaren issued a statement saying:

"McLaren is concerned that erroneous speculation has arisen from inaccurate and misleading reference to the contents of confidential legal papers filed at court in response to Ferrari's UK action to recover its intellectual property. This is unfortunate and is prejudicial to a fair interpretation of these matters...McLaren can confirm from its own investigation that no Ferrari materials or data are or have ever been in the possession of any McLaren employee other than the individual sued by Ferrari."(link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60866)).

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 16:19

ioan, I think it's worth reminding ourselves of what we do actually know and consider what is allergation or rumour.

FACT

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.number 4 is particulaly relevant because a duly signed and noted affadavit is not necessarily factually correct but is a sworn testamony of the truth as one person perceives it. we have the persons word that it is the truth but occassionaly, people lie to protect themselves. now, THAT is fact.

Allegation

1.the act of alleging; affirmation.
2.an assertion made with little or no proof.
3.an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.
4.a statement offered as a plea, excuse, or justification.again, number 3 is the relevant passage. there is an allegation that McLaren may have had material that was another teams and contravened the FIA sporting code. McLaren have been summoned to give their side of this affair and answer the charge and any evidence. If, after this meeting, the FIA believe there is proof that McLaren is guilty, they will set about prooving the charge. if McLaren satisfactorily answer the charge, they will be absolved.

as for rumour, well, I guess thats what your talking about.

ioan

24th July 2007, 16:35

if McLaren satisfactorily answer the charge, they will be absolved.

I don't know what is a satisfactory answer in this case given that apparently they didn't do what was right to do, that is immediately announce Ferrari and the FIA about what happened.

24th July 2007, 16:37

That information has reportedly been leaked from Coughlan's affidavit (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60794)) which apparently says that all McLaren employees responded in the same manner, by distancing themselves from the documents and advising Couglan to destroy them.

Following that report McLaren issued a statement saying:
(link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60866)).

But the problem is that, in the 'spirit of the rules' that so many hark on about, it's not enough just to distance yourself.

If anyone else at Mclaren knew that Coughlan had the documents, they should have brought it to the attention of Ron Dennis, the FIA & Ferrari.

Advising Coughlan to destroy them is not a moral stance and not a legal one, it's being implicit with an illegal action.

24th July 2007, 16:39

but occassionaly, people lie to protect themselves. now, THAT is fact.

And, by your well argued logic, the very same could be said about Mclaren's rebuttal.

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 16:50

jean Todts words

Finally, Todt summarised Ferrari's ongoing legal action against former employee Nigel Stepney and McLaren's chief designer Mike Coughlan. "We have a penal case ongoing in Italy against Nigel Stepney and we have a civil case in UK against Mike Coughlan.
"There is one hearing organised by the FIA on the 26th. At this stage, as I said two weeks ago, we cannot comment on it. Unfortunately it has been leaked too much in the press over the last days but it's out of our control. The more people who are aware, the more opportunity you have to have leaks. We just have to follow the procedures which are in process." But Todt did explain that Ferrari would be represented. However, he didn't confirm whether they would be offering evidence against McLaren, but closed by saying that "we may comment after the hearing."http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=262648&FS=F1

what I find interesting is that knowing what is contained in the statement, they are not choosing to persue McLaren with criminal charges relating to theft or espionage.

now, this is an opinion but my suggestion is that they know McLaren are clean otherwise they would have them up for it. Ron is stating catagorically that they are clean, putting his reputation on the line, and the FIA are going through a due dilligence excercise to ensure everything is transparent.

24th July 2007, 16:59

jean Todts words

http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=262648&FS=F1

what I find interesting is that knowing what is contained in the statement, they are not choosing to persue McLaren with criminal charges relating to theft or espionage.

now, this is an opinion but my suggestion is that they know McLaren are clean otherwise they would have them up for it. Ron is stating catagorically that they are clean, putting his reputation on the line, and the FIA are going through a due dilligence excercise to ensure everything is transparent.

Whilst I tend to agree, it's worth bearing in mind that

A) The FIA have charged Mclaren. Therefore it is not just due diligence. There is a charge to be answered.

The FIA deal with sporting regulations, and breaking a sporting regulation doesn't have to involve a criminal act.

B) Investigations by the Italian police are ongoing. Just because a party hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean that they are not going to be.

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 17:14

And, by your well argued logic, the very same could be said about Mclaren's rebuttal.

very much so. BUT, Ron has been very adamant and specific in such a way that he cannot be misinterpreted in any way. if there was any evidence, he would be crucified.

if there was complicity at McLaren, Ron could never be so sure and confident that there was no smoking gun. This leads me to think they are clean. Ronny's just TOO adamant for any uncertentity to be there.

Whilst I tend to agree, it's worth bearing in mind that

A) The FIA have charged Mclaren. Therefore it is not just due diligence. There is a charge to be answered.

The FIA deal with sporting regulations, and breaking a sporting regulation doesn't have to involve a criminal act.

B) Investigations by the Italian police are ongoing. Just because a party hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean that they are not going to be.

A) you are right but we dont know if this charge relates to this affadavit or something else. a little bird told me that it may relate to an email and not these plans. however, I stress that is rumour and I have no link.

B) agree totally.

24th July 2007, 17:24

very much so. BUT, Ron has been very adamant and specific in such a way that he cannot be misinterpreted in any way. if there was any evidence, he would be crucified.

Many a man has cried "I'm innocent" when they aren't. Being adamant is no guarantee of honesty.

Not to mention that, very much like Maranello in Enzo's days, perhaps nobody dare be honest with the boss?

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 17:25

I don't know what is a satisfactory answer in this case given that apparently they didn't do what was right to do, that is immediately announce Ferrari and the FIA about what happened.

what you mean is that if McLaren employees apart from Mike saw this document, and didn't report it, then McLaren should explain why not. there is no "apparently", but there is a rumour.

now, a little scenario for you.

what if Ross Brawn was approached by Nigel who said

"Ross old man, hypothetically what if I was to tell you that someone sent me the plans to next years McLaren".

and Ross replied

"Hypothetically, I would say they are hotter than a super-heated potato and you should burn them straight away".

is Rossie Boy in the wrong and should he grass him up to Todt and the FIA?

remember those bodies before you answer because this may come back to haunt Ferrari.

24th July 2007, 17:31

what you mean is that if McLaren employees apart from Mike saw this document, and didn't report it, then McLaren should explain why not. there is no "apparently", but there is a rumour.

now, a little scenario for you.

what if Ross Brawn was approached by Nigel who said

"Ross old man, hypothetically what if I was to tell you that someone sent me the plans to next years McLaren".

and Ross replied

"Hypothetically, I would say they are hotter than a super-heated potato and you should burn them straight away".

is Rossie Boy in the wrong and should he grass him up to Todt and the FIA?

remember those bodies before you answer because this may come back to haunt Ferrari.

Seeing a document, or being told of a documents existence is not the same as being asked a hypothetical question about a document.

The first two will get you charged by the FIA, the third won't.

Flat.tyres

24th July 2007, 17:35

Many a man has cried "I'm innocent" when they aren't. Being adamant is no guarantee of honesty.

Not to mention that, very much like Maranello in Enzo's days, perhaps nobody dare be honest with the boss?

I dont think the first part is right. evens Rons enemys respect his integrity. Ive never seen anyone in the business call Ron a dishonest man. now, Flav you would check your watch was on your wrist after shaking his hand :laugh:

the worrying thing is the second sentence. Ron had a crisis meeting the day before this broke and specifically asked if anyone else had seen any Ferrari documents. now, obviously I cant prove this so we will call it a rumour but apparently, it was news to the design and engineering heads. they know Ron was putting his reputation on the line, as he has before for McLaren, so if anyone witheld information, they may have sealed Rons fate. I really hope this isn't the case because this will all come out on Thursday.