FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal [Archive]

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 16:26

Ferrari will get the chance to tell their version of the spying affair after FIA president Max Mosley decided to send the case to the Court of Appeal.
Mosley's decision comes after a letter from Italy's automobile federation president Luigi Macaluso, in which the Italian was critical of the World Motor Sport Council's ruling to not penalise McLaren despite finding them guilty of being in possession of confidential documents belonging to Ferrari.
In a letter replying to Macaluso, Mosley said the matter will now be taken to the Court of Appeal, where Ferrari will be able to give their version of the story.
The Italian squad were unable to appeal the verdict as they were only invited to last week's WMSC hearing.
"Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered," wrote Mosley in the letter.
"Because of this and the importance of public confidence in the outcome, I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal under article 23.1 of the FIA Statues with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not, substitute such other decision as may be just."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61242

markabilly

31st July 2007, 16:46

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61242
or closed to protect revenue (for the good of the sport, of course, of course!!) :s mokin:

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 16:53

It's fairly public so far because Autosport has published the letters exchanged by Mosely & Macaluso.

Flat.tyres

31st July 2007, 16:57

Flat.tyres

31st July 2007, 17:18

by the way, I cant remember seeing it but is there a interview in English with the Itallian FIA member where he claims that he didnt agree with the verdict?

now, THAT would be interesting in light of the latest developments :D

ioan

31st July 2007, 17:32

ioan

31st July 2007, 17:49

Max realised how stupid it was to declare that the result of the vote was unanimous while Macaluso stated that he was against the ruling.
It only highlighted the fact that the FIA wanted the whole case swept under the carpet and forgot it as fast as possible, no matter what others thought about it.

Now with Macaluso speaking up against them and with Ferrari threatening to sue McLaren Bernie and Max realised that they were so stupid not to fine McLaren when they had the occasion. :rolleyes:

markabilly

31st July 2007, 17:54

Well just when I thought things could NOT get any dumber, hot off the press from the mouth of NS himself:

"Someone gave away the designs but it wasn't me. Someone set me up and that person is still within Ferrari," Nigel Stepney said in an interview in Tuesday's editions of Italian daily La Repubblica.*************************************** *****

A mysterious white powder was found on the gas tanks of Ferrari's cars on May 21, six days before the Monaco race, and traces of the powder have reportedly been found in a pair of Stepney's trousers. "I didn't put it there," Stepney told La Repubblica. "They put the powder in my pants pocket while I was taking a shower."

Or so it says in the article----That is the best he has got to say....????....

The article says he has a new job outside F1.

My guess, based on this story, is that he will be ghost writing the next Harry Potter book.......to be called "Harry and the Croaking Toad" or maybe a simple auto-bio to be called "Two Too Stupid Designers" who go to Russia to spy on Putin and sell nuke secrets to Iran but get caught at a local copy shop when they run out of money while copying top secret stuff and start asking folks for spare change so they could protect national security....... :rolleyes:

but at trial they get off when the jury believes that someone set them up , and the 704 page manual of top secret stuff was put there, in his pocket, while he was taking a shower, never noticing it until after he was arrested....

Of course someone might ask as to why he was wearing his pants while he was takin a shower.....to which he replies, that he did not not want to be caught with his pants down and look like a real dumb liar...while in the background Mikie boy starts singing "hey brother, can you spare a dime"

Bagwan

31st July 2007, 18:30

have Ferrari been caught with their pants down? they have been playing on the "supposed" evidence and spinning it out of existance and it looks like Max has had enough.

am I right in thinking this will be public? Im rubbing my hands in anticipation :D

Time to put up or shut up Jean :p :

That is one spin , Flat .

But , that wouldn't fit with it being Italy's auto federation this is calling on the WMSC for the appeal .
And , it wouldn't fit with Max favouring the reds either , which is the usual rhetoric .

If one of the chief designers at one team was in possession of anothers documents they are guilty at the very least , of that possession .

It is suggested that , with more evidence supplied , the outcome might have been different , and , being that McLaren were not punished , that suggests that they may still be .
When he speaks of "public confidence in the outcome" , he is relating to all the polls being taken all over the internet .

It has confused the public to find McLaren guilty but not sanction them .

Even more confusing is what to do if we now assume they will be sanctioned .
If the idea that the first gain they made was dropping the flex-floor bomb , then just how many races did it set Ferrari and others back . Is banning them for that number of races the right thing to do ?
Or do you fine them an amount that would cover the costs the other teams spent developing the flex-floors ?

If what Stepney is starting to tell is a true tale , then Ferrari have an issue with which to deal themselves , in-house .

I have a buddy who used to sell Ferraris , and , in the middle of a recession , was witness to one of the worst examples of management of which I have ever heard tell .
Luca arrived to an excited staff meeting and unceremoniously dressed down all the staff down to the receptionist , swearing and cursing so venomously that he was spitting on all within range .

I think Luca Montezemolo may be who is getting folks to such a state that they would do stuff like this .

But , first , we need to sort out this public perception issue , and give them a fine and get on with it .

31st July 2007, 19:02

Time to put up or shut up Jean :p :

Or, alternatively, time to **** your pants Ron?

Having already been found guilty, chances are that any further evidence will merely add to the pressure for a sanction befitting the crime to be imposed.

Putting on my biased red hat for one moment, a points deduction would be correct, but putting on my reasonable hat a cheque or postal order made payable to Ferrari SPA by way of an compensation payment will suffice.

Much as I would like to believe that my beloved Scuderia are only being beaten by the skullduggery of Wokingistas, I don't necessarily wish to see the championship decided in a court room.

31st July 2007, 19:05

raphael123

31st July 2007, 19:20

To the people who argue that McLaren should be punished, because Coughlan was a member of the team - do you think drivers should be included. So when Schumacher got punished in Jerez 97, why didn't Ferrari get their points taken aware from them - only Michael Schumacher?

Or is that different somehow?

raphael123

31st July 2007, 19:23

On another (related) note, would those in the forum community who do not doubt the integrity of Ron Dennis please explain why, at the 2003 Brazilian GP, did he blatantly and publically attempt, and for a shortwhile achieve, to rob the real and deserved winner of his victory by saying that he hadn't completed the lap when he knew only too well that Giancarlo Fisichella had completed the lap before the third place car crashed?

Not exactly the actions of a man whose integrity is beyond doubt.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Did Ron knew? I don't remember him coming out and saying he knew all along.

To those who claim McLaren must have known about Coughlan's having the dossiers, because Coughlan said so, do they know believe Stepney when he says he never handed over the dossier? And do they believe Jean Todt when he claims McLaren knew (without showing us any evidence how he knows that), and Ron Dennis saying he or McLaren didn't know about it. At the end of the day, at least 3 of them are lying, its one persons word over the other.

Ian McC

31st July 2007, 19:26

When he speaks of "public confidence in the outcome" , he is relating to all the polls being taken all over the internet .

So mob rule has taken it's toll

If they want to close this off they need to involve everyone, that includes Ferrari, McLaren, Stepney and Coughlan. Until they clear up this mess no one is going to take them seriously.

Although for some, unless there is a hanging, you are never going to please them whatever the facts.

N. Jones

31st July 2007, 19:36

What a mess this story is....
For my part I am keeping away from saying anything beyond this post. I will just follow this story while shaking my head in disbelief.

:arrows: I don't know what to believe.....

markabilly

31st July 2007, 20:19

Did Ron knew? I don't remember him coming out and saying he knew all along.

To those who claim McLaren must have known about Coughlan's having the dossiers, because Coughlan said so, do they know believe Stepney when he says he never handed over the dossier? And do they believe Jean Todt when he claims McLaren knew (without showing us any evidence how he knows that), and Ron Dennis saying he or McLaren didn't know about it. At the end of the day, at least 3 of them are lying, its one persons word over the other.

At the end of the day at least three are lying?? By now, No one who was "objective" would believe any of them....odd thing is that poor ole NS might be the only innocent one in this whole mess--after all, he did not get caught with his pants down while in the shower or whatever....Now that is a true Alfred Hitchcock kind of twist.....

Somewhere Michael Schumi is having a real big laugh, thinkin ok Luca baby boot my ass out of there...I and me alone put this team together, nothing happenned without my say so-so (and it was no accident I ran over NS's foot, that was just a little warning)---I was as much the team principal as is Ron Dennis at big mc.....I leave and six months later, Ferrari is back to being a silly circus, a dog chasing its tail and tripping over its own feet, :crazy: but now dragging of all people, Ron Dennis, right into the Italian soap opera muck with them hahahaaa :roll: :grenade: :roll:

Team :monkeedan Scuderia, our heroes!!!

Meanwhile, Bernie enrie is off thinking, that little lucky bitty, makin all that money--getting to be as rich as me and all she did was write that stupid hary potter story, she don't have to put up with prima donna driver egos, bloated old farts like Ron Dennis, sly little frenchman like jean todt, and the constant threat that people like toni george will not pay me my millions and the whole operation get taken over by a bank.......and now this silly mess threatening my revenue flow, just when I had Hamie busy ringing up sales and more new money, why he is almost as good as tobacco

Bagwan

31st July 2007, 20:22

So mob rule has taken it's toll

If they want to close this off they need to involve everyone, that includes Ferrari, McLaren, Stepney and Coughlan. Until they clear up this mess no one is going to take them seriously.

Although for some, unless there is a hanging, you are never going to please them whatever the facts.

You are right , Ian , although I maybe wouldn't phrase your first line that way .
It seems like the hearing was a bit of a wallabee court , with those attending not hearing both sides of the story . For that fact alone , the decision is being questioned .

The rethink on this is , I think , due to overwhelming opinion , but was technically asked for by the Italian auto federation .

This actually gives me hope that they could come to some sort of agreement here , as they seem to have listened to logic and the public .

But , now comes the hard part . How do we assess the damage ?

ioan

31st July 2007, 21:50

McLaren crying out loud as soon as they feel the heat:

"Following a thoroughly misleading press campaign by Ferrari and pressure from the Automobile Club D'Italia, the FIA has asked the FIA International Court of Appeal to consider the unanimous decision made by the World Motor Sport Council on 26th July 2007," the McLaren team said in the statement.

"Having considered in great detail the full submissions of both Ferrari and McLaren, the World Motorsport Council determined that there was no evidence that any information, passed by a Ferrari team member to a McLaren employee, had been brought into the organisation or provided any benefit whatsoever to the McLaren programme.

"McLaren is not aware of any new information or arguments that have arisen since the meeting of the World Motor Sport Council and therefore assumes that these same materials will now be considered by the FIA International Court of Appeal.

"Whilst this is both disappointing and time-consuming, McLaren is confident that the FIA International Court of Appeal will also exonerate McLaren and we will in the meanwhile continue to focus on our current World Championship programme."

What was that about Ferrari making noise and hurting the sport when they felt wronged by the FIA?
Look at McLaren now! They even say that the WMC had a unanimous decision when one of it's members said that it wasn't true!
And they even say that both parties exposed their versions when it was already declared that Ferrari wasn't given the chance to present their case!!!

Spinning the truth didn't get them to far until now and I doubt it will even in the future.

markabilly

31st July 2007, 22:10

quote=ioan;314896]McLaren crying out loud as soon as they feel the heat:

What was that about Ferrari making noise and hurting the sport when they felt wronged by the FIA?
Look at McLaren now! They even say that the WMC had a unanimous decision when one of it's members said that it wasn't true!
And they even say that both parties exposed their versions when it was already declared that Ferrari wasn't given the chance to present their case!!!

Spinning the truth didn't get them to far until now and I doubt it will even in the future.[/quote]

This was NOT and never was about "truth" and never ever will be.....which is what is sad (but MS was not merely the best driver, but as probably as good a team principal as there ever was--Ferrari is not the same withou him in charge, now becoming more like :roll: :s pin: :rotflmao: :roll: :roll: just like the good ole days

Ian McC

31st July 2007, 22:41

You are right , Ian , although I maybe wouldn't phrase your first line that way .
It seems like the hearing was a bit of a wallabee court , with those attending not hearing both sides of the story . For that fact alone , the decision is being questioned .

The rethink on this is , I think , due to overwhelming opinion , but was technically asked for by the Italian auto federation .

This actually gives me hope that they could come to some sort of agreement here , as they seem to have listened to logic and the public .

But , now comes the hard part . How do we assess the damage ?

Actually I take back my comment about mob rule, I now think that the FIA underestimated the reaction to their hearing. I don't think that it's the verdict that's the issue but how they got there. I just hope they don't just slap McLaren with a fine because that will just look like they are just trying to keep everyone quiet and then hope it goes away.

What they need to do is actually investigate what went on, the only way out of this is to get to the truth.

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 22:43

It seems like the hearing was a bit of a wallabee court , with those attending not hearing both sides of the story . For that fact alone , the decision is being questioned.
I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

ioan

31st July 2007, 22:50

I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

FIA's guilty but not punished verdict was bringing the sport into disrepute, they now decided however that Bernie's money is less important than risking to be laughed about every time they give a sentence from now on.

gm99

31st July 2007, 23:01

McLaren crying out loud as soon as they feel the heat:

What was that about Ferrari making noise and hurting the sport when they felt wronged by the FIA?
Look at McLaren now! They even say that the WMC had a unanimous decision when one of it's members said that it wasn't true!

C'mon, even the FIA have confirmed that the decision was unanimous: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19461.html

And one may think whatever one wishes about the FIA, but I do not think they would knowingly falsify the outcome of a WMSC meeting, in particular as 26 (?) members were present and none of those - other than the gentleman from Italy, who so happens to be a self-confessed Ferrari supporter - have come out to say since Saturday, when the FIA clarification was published, that the decision was in fact not unanimous.

Be that as it may, I am looking forward to what the Court of Appeals will decide and hoping that its decision will put all discussions to rest, so that we all can concentrate on the action taking place on track.

ArrowsFA1

31st July 2007, 23:19

...in particular as 26 (?) members were present...
According to Martin Brundle's Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article2159050.ece) there were 25 World Council members. Also:
"...there were upwards of 75 people in the room with others participating by satellite link, and the questioning was comprehensive and aggressive."

I am looking forward to what the Court of Appeals will decide and hoping that its decision will put all discussions to rest, so that we all can concentrate on the action taking place on track.
:up:

ioan

31st July 2007, 23:32

C'mon, even the FIA have confirmed that the decision was unanimous: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19461.html

That's what they would have liked us to believe.
How is that unanimous if one of the members says he was against the decision? Maybe checking up the unanimous word in the dictionary is in order? :p :

Valve Bounce

31st July 2007, 23:43

Or, alternatively, time to **** your pants Ron?

Having already been found guilty, chances are that any further evidence will merely add to the pressure for a sanction befitting the crime to be imposed.

Putting on my biased red hat for one moment, a points deduction would be correct, but putting on my reasonable hat a cheque or postal order made payable to Ferrari SPA by way of an compensation payment will suffice.

Much as I would like to believe that my beloved Scuderia are only being beaten by the skullduggery of Wokingistas, I don't necessarily wish to see the championship decided in a court room.

How about putting Ron Dennis in stocks in the township square for a couple of days. http://au.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861797927/stocks.html

You could set up a tomatoe stand nearby. :p :

gm99

31st July 2007, 23:51

That's what they would have liked us to believe.
How is that unanimous if one of the members says he was against the decision? Maybe checking up the unanimous word in the dictionary is in order? :p :

If he says afterwards that he has been against the decision, but actually voted in favor of it, it can still be unanimous :p :

Do you not think that if indeed Signore Macaluso had voted against the decision in the WMSC and then the FIA comes out to say everyone had been for it, this would have been one of the points that Macaluso would have raised in his letter to Max Mosley, in particular as this in itself might be a reason for appeal? I certainly would not keep quiet about my vote not being taken seriously - yet no word from Macaluso that the FIA's clarifying statement from July 28 was false in that the decision was not unanimous. Nor, as I pointed out earlier, did anyone else present at the meeting contest the FIA's claim.

gm99

1st August 2007, 00:01

In any case, Macaluso's comments immediately after the meeting on July 26 did sound a bit different:

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2007-07-26T154340Z_01_L26857057_RTRIDST_0_SPORTS-MOTOR-RACING-MCLAREN-COL.XML&archived=False
Italian Luigi Macaluso, a member of the 25 man council, told the Gazzetta dello Sport Web site: "There was not the proof. We could not have done more."

And for those who don't believe English-speaking websites, here's the full reaction of Macaluso from the Gazzetta dello Sport (http://www.gazzetta.it/Motori/Formula1/ )

Luigi Macaluso (Membro Consiglio Fia):
"Non c'erano le prove per un vantaggio da parte della McLaren". È il commento di Luigi Macaluso, neo presidente della Csai, all'uscita del Consiglio mondiale della Fia a cui ha partecipato come membro effettivo. "È stata una riunione molto tecnica - ha precisato - molto professionale. Il fatto è che non c'erano delle prove evidenti a carico della McLaren. Dei singoli si occuperà la giustizia oridinaria". Macaluso ha poi sottolineato di non credere che dalla decisione di oggi "scaturisca una mancanza di credibilità della Formula 1". "In effetti - ha concluso - le prove non ci sono. Detto questo c'è stato un trasferimento evidente di informazioni. Non c'è nessun dubbio. Questo trasferimento di informazioni è per me molto grave. Decisione appellabile ? È tutto appellabile".

Essentially, he says that that hasn't been proof that McLaren gained an advantage, that the verdict would not damage the credibility of F1, and that there has definitively been a transfer of information which he regards as very seriously. (please do correct any mistakes I made in translating the text, my Italian is not so good).
Nowhere does he actually say he did not vote in favor of the decision...

BDunnell

1st August 2007, 00:11

Timber

1st August 2007, 02:22

I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

the best thing that he ever did ..... way to go Max .
McLaren , you broke the rules , you should pay the price ....!
I still want Alonso to win the WC .....

Ranger

1st August 2007, 08:07

McLaren should receive a fine, like I have said. The process of the whole thing seems a bit messed up and unprofessional, however.

ArrowsFA1

1st August 2007, 08:20

Some interesting comments & news on GrandPrix.com (http://www.grandprix.com).

About the appeal:

The move buys Ferrari time in which McLaren will continue to be under pressure and painted in a bad light, while at the same time giving the Italian team time to reach agreement with Mike Coughlan and Nigel Stepney in the hope that they can be persuaded to provide more evidence against McLaren. If sufficient evidence existed, Ferrari would already have gone to court.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19470.html

Stepney also claimed that a number of other disgruntled employees were going to form a breakway team and that it would have been led by Ross Brawn.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19469.html

The Ferrari board met in Maranello yesterday and discussed the situation regarding Nigel Stepney, Mike Coughlan and McLaren and gave its permission for Jean Todt to "initiate and continue any necessary legal action, in the name of the company, in addition to those legal actions already under way in every legal, civil, criminal, administrative, sporting jurisdiction be it, in Italy or abroad".
It is not clear why this decision required a press statement as normally internal discussions at Ferrari are not made public and it is blatantly obvious that Todt intends to try to prove the Ferrari claims against McLaren in some kind of court.
However, there is also no doubt that the press release adds to the impression that Ferrari is milking this situation for all it is worth.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19472.html

One thing that is clear is that the current fight is creating a new level of bitterness between the teams - and that cannot be a good thing for F1.
The good news is that the press will be allowed to attend the FIA Court of Appeal and thus much more can be reported about the case. Putting ALL the evidence into the public domain will give everyone a better idea of the real issues in this case. McLaren has scrupulously avoided giving away anything, apparently to ensure that any legal process will not be prejudiced. Ferrari denies leaking information to the Italian media.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19472.html

wmcot

1st August 2007, 08:25

According to Martin Brundle's Times article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article2159050.ece) there were 25 World Council members. Also:

:up:

Was Brundle there? I thought this was closed to the public and with Brundle being a commentator, would they have invited him?

I do think it's important that both sides get to ask all the questions they want answered and get to state the points they want to make. It doesn't sound like this happened in the first hearing.

As for Stepney, hasn't Coughlan named him directly in his sworn affidavit? His accusations sound really desperate and not very convincing. The Elvis theory is just as good thanks to Valve!

As for the outcome, if McLaren are found to be guilty and the penalty is deemed to be more severe than a fine, I would suspect that only constructor's points would be in jeopardy. But then, that would be common sense and the FIA is in short supply of common sense! :)

ArrowsFA1

1st August 2007, 08:41

Was Brundle there?
As he says "apparently" there were 75 people in the room, then no, but he obviously knows people who were there.

wmcot

1st August 2007, 08:49

As he says "apparently" there were 75 people in the room, then no, but he obviously knows people who were there.

OK, just trying to clear it all up. I would really like to hear some concrete information from someone directly involved with this whole mess.

SteveA

1st August 2007, 09:09

OK, just trying to clear it all up. I would really like to hear some concrete information from someone directly involved with this whole mess.

I don't think its got to the concrete stage yet. Nigel Stepney - coming to a bridge support near you soon ;)

DonnieDarco

1st August 2007, 09:56

I bet that wiped the smug smirk off Ron's face :D It had to happen, since nobody but them understands how it is that you can find a team guilty, but not actually punish them.

F1MAN2007

1st August 2007, 11:22

markabilly

1st August 2007, 14:41

What I know is that at the end of this spy SAGA, Mclaren will stay in F1 (whatever the penality they may pay or not ) and one of his drivers will win the WDC this year. Tha is is enough for me.

For other things, I am sure F1 or FIA can't afford to ban Mclaren in the F1 unless they want to kick out the sport. The Sport today is a business like business, so taking that kind of decision would be stupid for FIA and for all involved in this sport

AFTER the season is over...too much revenue is at stake and no way Mclaren gets banned--a symbolic slap on the hand at most if anything....perhaps a harsher penalty after the season is completed (Why? well one cannot turn off the tv AFTER the season is over)

ANd NOTHING imposed for next year :s mokin:

markabilly

1st August 2007, 14:46

I bet that wiped the smug smirk off Ron's face :D It had to happen, since nobody but them understands how it is that you can find a team guilty, but not actually punish them.

He told The People that most of the current grid are lucky to be in motorsport's premier formula, saying: "Fifty percent of the grid is made up of useless drivers."
He also explained that Lewis Hamilton has "McLaren in his blood"

"We wanted a driver who was young and fresh, not a recycled driver coming from another team with the habits of another team," concluded Dennis.

That certainly explains Alsono's status on the team and I guess why Kimi, DC, RS and JPM left.... :rolleyes: :p being recycled drivers from another team, no doubt part of the useless fifty percent

DonnieDarco

1st August 2007, 14:55

Bitter??? Ron's not bitter! ;) :D

Ian McC

1st August 2007, 19:38

The move buys Ferrari time in which McLaren will continue to be under pressure and painted in a bad light, while at the same time giving the Italian team time to reach agreement with Mike Coughlan and Nigel Stepney in the hope that they can be persuaded to provide more evidence against McLaren. If sufficient evidence existed, Ferrari would already have gone to court.

How far will someone go to avoid any court action, if they are both told Ferrari will not persue any action against them if they give evidence against McLaren how far will they go, including bending the truth?

trevortherevver

1st August 2007, 20:42

Here's a thought.

Ferrari was in deep trouble at the start of the year having lost Michael and Ross and Rory and couldn't keep Kimi out of the strip clubs. They knew that McLaren were going to be the chief rivals and had to do something. Then some bright spark comes up with an idea. Send a bunch of confidential information to a hig-up in McLaren, start a spy scandal, get a World Coucil hearing on the matter and get McLaren kicked out of the championship. Job done!

If nothing else, it detracts McLaren from the day-to-day effort of running the team. It does the same to Ferrari, I know, but as they are on the attack they are more in control and should be less affected.

None of us knows what really happened but that doesn't stop us jumping to conclusions. It seems the appeal will be open to the press so much more will become evident then.

On the question of compensating Ferrari for the work they did on the flexible floor and the gain that McLaren got from it being banned, if it was illegal, they shouldn't have run it in the first place so they took the risk of pushing the boundaries of the rules and, eventually, lost. Just like McLaren did with their fiddle brakes a few years ago or Lotus with the twin-chassis car. Part of the game.

This is one of the closest championships for a while and I don't know who will win. Let it be won on the track.

ioan

1st August 2007, 21:28

Here's a thought.

Think again.

ioan

1st August 2007, 22:01

And RD can't keep himself from a public and highly emotional comment!

Some interesting parts:

In addition to this, Ferrari has tried to latch on to two instances where Mr Coughlan has stated that he showed single pages which he says were from the Ferrari Documents to two other McLaren staff: Mr Taylor (another McLaren engineer who had previously worked with Mr Coughlan when they were both at Ferrari) and Mr Neale (Mr Coughlan's superior).

It is fact that Mr Coughlan never passed the Ferrari documents to anyone else at McLaren or told anyone at McLaren that he had these documents. It is fact that no-one at McLaren knew that Mr Coughlan had received any documents from Mr Stepney on the 28th April. It is fact that Mr Coughlan had been told by his superior Mr Neale to stop all contact with Mr Stepney straight after the Australian Grand Prix.

So did they knew or didn't they knew about it? Or does Ron know what he is talking at all?

The best one:

As is now in the public domain, Mr Coughlan has admitted that Mr Stepney gave him a dossier of Ferrari Documents in Barcelona which he took for his own private reasons, he says "engineering curiosity".

And why was Coughlan curious about the Ferrari car? There are so many other things that an engineer might be curious!

I've almost forgot the link to the fairy tale:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

ioan

1st August 2007, 22:06

And it seems that Stepney isn't really telling the truth:

Former Ferrari engineer Nigel Stepney, sacked by the team this year amid accusations of sabotage and espionage, suggested earlier this week that Brawn was part of a group of people interested in leaving Ferrari for another team.

Brawn, however, has denied any links with other teams, and has said he has only discussed his future with Ferrari.

"Following recent media reportage of my situation and the background and the reasons for my sabbatical I thought it might be helpful to re-confirm my position," Brawn told autosport.com.

"The reasons for taking a sabbatical year from Ferrari were purely personal. After 30 years in motor racing I wanted to devote time to my family and pursue some personal ambitions that time had not allowed.

"Whilst, I am pleased to say, Ferrari was disappointed with my decision, they understood my reasons and asked me to discuss future options with them when I was ready to return to motor racing.

"We have now begun these discussions to see if the requirements of Ferrari and my ambitions might match and to see if there is a possibility of working together in the future.

"After ten fantastic years, the people and culture of Ferrari and Italy is in my blood and Ferrari is my team. Ferrari is the only team or group I have discussed my future with.

"Any reports linking me with other teams or projects are either inaccurate or speculation."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61256

jas123f1

1st August 2007, 23:38

During whole this spying history I still had one kind of respect to Ron Dennis and his words, however it starts now to disappear when I’m following how he’s trying to defend the mistakes his team has made in this mess.

Why he can not understand that "the team McLaren" has a responsibility to if his team doesn’t follow law and justice. It really is not enough if RD do it – FIA has rules for teams not only to the team principals. I am very surprised that Ron Dennis doesn’t understand that.
I think it would be much better if he says that he will take the responsibility what’s his team has down.

Now - he has started accuse Ferrari for their win in Australia and ADMIT that same man who gave this secret Ferrari info to their chief designer ALSO gave them (McLaren) the information according the Ferrari floor in Australia.

AND he did know that - he admit that did know who the Ferrari man was.

Ron even thinks that this "Ferrari man" did a right thing when he gave them this information and he didn't find any reason to inform Ferrari of that one of their employers gave then information .

For me that means - Ron Dennis think that it’s OK and fair if Ferrari employers are giving secret information to them.

That’s the reason why I don’t believe him any more in this case.
If it’s ok to read the secret info from a competitor ones, what’s saying that they don’t do it also in next time? (E.g. maybe there is something wrong in Ferrari design which gives McLaren a reason to make a protest against them again).

Sorry Ron Dennis, but I should like to see that you more straight-backed take the responsibility for your team – the fact is that your chief designer had this Ferrari papers and it's a McLaren matter..

tinchote

2nd August 2007, 02:47

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 03:00

trevortherevver

2nd August 2007, 06:08

To say that RD could not help himself from a public and highly emotional comment is a bit rich considering all the statements from Ferrari and the words they use. While it's interesting to read another side of the argument, I rather wish that he had kept quiet until the appeal. Rather more dignified that way.

I don't see any paradoxes in Ron's statement. Coughlan could have shown someone at McLaren some Ferrari papers without the McLaren person knowing they were from Ferrari. I agree with his whistleblower statements. How could they give away their source and expect others to blow the whistle in other cheats? This is written into the law of some countries to protect whistleblowers so Are people complaining that McLaren told the FIA about an illegal car while not complaining about Ferrari running an illegal car in the first place? Coughlan was told to not have any contact with Stepney after Stepney told him about the floor and wing. There is nothing about Coughlan having Ferrari documents at that time.

If Stepney did pass secrets to McLaren, why has he not been charged? They were quick enough to charge the Ferrari people who were accused of taking secrets to Toyota a few years back.

With all this carry on, I can see why the FIA is so keen on standard parts on all the cars. Perhaps some of you will be upset that the standard ECU will be made by McLaren Electronic System Ltd., though.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 06:53

I agree with his whistleblower statements. How could they give away their source and expect others to blow the whistle in other cheats? This is written into the law of some countries to protect whistleblowers so Are people complaining that McLaren told the FIA about an illegal car while not complaining about Ferrari running an illegal car in the first place? Coughlan was told to not have any contact with Stepney after Stepney told him about the floor and wing. There is nothing about Coughlan having Ferrari documents at that time.

If Stepney did pass secrets to McLaren, why has he not been charged? They were quick enough to charge the Ferrari people who were accused of taking secrets to Toyota a few years back.

Here are a couple of definitions for you:

Whistleblower - A person who reports misconduct in his organization to the proper authorities.

Spy - A person who gives or sells information from one organization to a competing organization.

If I work for Ford Motor Company and I see something illegal going on, I will call an attorney, the police, or the federal authorities. I would not call General Motors! That's the difference between a whistleblower and a spy! Is THAT example easy enough to understand???

Point 2 - Stepney has been charged and awaits a trial/hearing in Italy.

Anything else that needs correcting????

Dzeidzei

2nd August 2007, 07:20

Think again.

Ioan is right. Hey, here´s an idea: registrate again and start posting bs, so no one will know who you really are.

(dont worry "trevor", no one cares)

ioan

2nd August 2007, 07:47

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 08:36

I've almost forgot the link to the fairy tale:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260
Just as well you did because reading RD's entire letter explains McLaren's position clearly and fully.

To say that RD could not help himself from a public and highly emotional comment is a bit rich considering all the statements from Ferrari and the words they use. While it's interesting to read another side of the argument, I rather wish that he had kept quiet until the appeal.
I agree. I was a little surprised to see McLaren responding, but you can understand why they have.

Sure, when RD is stating things publicly it's OK but when when Ferrari expressed themselves it was bad for the sport. :rolleyes:
The public release of RD's letter comes after a week that has seen a number of Ferrari statements criticising the FIA decision, and repeating as yet unfounded allegations against McLaren. In those circumstances it's hard to see a CEO of any company sitting back and allowing such allegations to go unchallenged.

I also have a problem understanding why his letter was addressed to Macaluso and not to the FIA? Rony boy doesn't have the balls to directly take on Mosely? Why's that? If they are not guilty as he states than why is he afraid?
The letter was addressed to Macaluso simply because it is a response to Macaluso's own letter and the charges made in that letter. You may have noticed that copies were sent to Mosley and Todt.

Valve Bounce

2nd August 2007, 08:38

If I work for Ford Motor Company and I see something illegal going on, I will call an attorney, the police, or the federal authorities. I would not call General Motors! That's the difference between a whistleblower and a spy! Is THAT example easy enough to understand???

Anything else that needs correcting????

Well, as a matter of fact, YEAH! :)
You could give Ralf Nader a ring.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 08:48

Well, as a matter of fact, YEAH! :)
You could give Ralf Nader a ring.

Speaking of Ralph Nader, I once saw a mint, early '60s Chevrolet Corvair driving around downtown Salt Lake City. It's license plate was "F NADER" :)

(Sorry, totally off topic, but I had to share it...)

ioan

2nd August 2007, 09:44

Just as well you did because reading RD's entire letter explains McLaren's position clearly and fully.

I read all that ronspeak complete with spinning and BS! :p :

I agree. I was a little surprised to see McLaren responding, but you can understand why they have.

You didn't seem to be that understanding when Ferrari complained about the verdict, but you understand Ron's attacks and drivel! :rolleyes:

The public release of RD's letter comes after a week that has seen a number of Ferrari statements criticising the FIA decision, and repeating as yet unfounded allegations against McLaren. In those circumstances it's hard to see a CEO of any company sitting back and allowing such allegations to go unchallenged.

Other excuses?!

The letter was addressed to Macaluso simply because it is a response to Macaluso's own letter and the charges made in that letter. You may have noticed that copies were sent to Mosley and Todt.

So is RD upset because Malacuso wanted a fair hearing for the case, or is he afraid that McLaren will get finally busted for spying on another team?
They've already been found guilty and now they will likely be punished too, and even if it will only be a fine (which will keep everyone happy) it will in fact leave no more doubts about McLaren being at fault in the whole affair!

He could have saved the money and the time of going to the copy shop to make those copies, Max and Todt also read newspapers! ;)

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 09:51

On another note, those who are critical of Ron Dennis should read Jean Todt's statement again:

"...it should be noted that yesterday's meeting was not an appearance before a tribunal, but a meeting of the FIA World Council, at which only McLaren was asked to respond to accusations and in which we were present only as observers. Therefore there was no possibility to play an active role as we would have wished. I was only able to ask a few questions and reply to some, but we were not able to present our case nor the documents to support it."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61180

and ask themselves why Todt chose to miss out the fact that that Ferrari prepared and presented their evidence at the FIA hearing in the form of a 118-page document, and were allowed to cross-examine during a hearing that lasted in the region of five and half hours.

ioan

2nd August 2007, 10:50

On another note, those who are critical of Ron Dennis should read Jean Todt's statement again:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61180

and ask themselves why Todt chose to miss out the fact that that Ferrari prepared and presented their evidence at the FIA hearing in the form of a 118-page document, and were allowed to cross-examine during a hearing that lasted in the region of five and half hours.

If you think that 5 hours is enough to present what was in that 118 pages document alone than it's your problem.
It was a farce, you can't hear all, think about it and decide the right solution in that little time, unless it was decided before it even began.
And Bernie's comments plus the Spanish guy's comments suggested exactly that, it was all fixed.

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 12:07

If you think that 5 hours is enough to present what was in that 118 pages document alone than it's your problem.
It was a farce, you can't hear all, think about it and decide the right solution in that little time, unless it was decided before it even began.
And Bernie's comments plus the Spanish guy's comments suggested exactly that, it was all fixed.
The problem is Ferrari's who have yet to produce the evidence to back up their very public allegations, despite being given the opportunity to do so (contrary to what Todt claims). They will have yet another opportunity to do so at the appeal and if they are able to produce anything new which proves that McLaren made use of Ferrari documents that were in Coughlan's possession then good for them. If that happens then McLaren deserve to be penalised.

Valve Bounce

2nd August 2007, 12:49

seppefan

2nd August 2007, 12:58

Stepneygate - the whole story

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19473.htmlhttp://a.tribalfusion.com/i.click?site=GrandPrixcom&adSpace=ROS&size=300x250&requestID=281798365
One of the big problems with the ongoing Stepneygate Affair is that there is a huge amount of hearsay, but not a great deal of fact. There are two affidavits: one from Mike Coughlan and one from his wife Trudy. Elements of these documents have been reported in detail in Italy and have been copied elsewhere in the media, but no-one is admitting to having the affidavits or of having supplied them to the press. This is because these statements are privileged information and are only available to the Coughlans, their lawyers, High Court officials and Ferrari, McLaren, the FIA and their respective legal teams.
There are elements of truth in what has been published, but it is by no means clear whether all the details have come out, nor whether the timing of the various events has been taken into account in the stories that have been written. The timing of events is clearly important because between March and July, the relationship between McLaren and Mike Coughlan was changing. In parallel to this story, Nigel Stepney, Coughlan and four others (three at Ferrari and one at McLaren) were developing a plan to join forces to create an engineering group that would be employed by another Formula 1 team. The problem therefore is to distinguish at what point Coughlan was working for himself, or for Stepney's engineering group, and when he was working for McLaren. Ferrari claims that McLaren was involved throughout.
The story begins, however, back in 2006 when Ferrari made Coughlan an offer to join the team in Maranello.
This was not possible because at the time Coughlan had just agreed a new deal with McLaren to run from 2007 to 2009. We hear that the World Council also heard that Coughlan was involved in discussions with Toyota in the same period. This information apparently came to light when McLaren went through Coughlan's e-mails after the current crisis began.
It is clear, therefore, that from late 2006 Coughlan was interested in moving elsewhere. Engineers can leave their employment with just six months of gardening leave, if they can find a way to get their intended new team to settle with their current employers. According to our sources Coughlan wanted to move from earning around $700,000 a year to become one of the highly-paid big name engineers in F1.
At the same time Nigel Stepney was becoming very disaffected at Ferrari, as he was not happy with the new management structure at Ferrari after Ross Brawn's decision to leave the Italian team. This relationship deteriorated over the winter and around the time of the Australian Grand Prix, Coughlan received an e-mail from Stepney alerting him to technical questions about the Ferrari. McLaren apparently argued to the World Council that this was a case of whistle-blowing and that this event should be viewed as being entirely separate to later developments. This argument was backed up by the fact that in mid-April Coughlan asked for a firewall to be created to stop further e-mails arriving from Stepney.
Coughlan travelled to Barcelona on April 28 and it seems that McLaren was under the impression that he was going there to tell Stepney to stop him sending e-mails.
In his affidavit, it seems that Coughlan says that he returned to the UK with 780 pages of Ferrari documents.
The meeting in Barcelona seems to have triggered an approach by Stepney to Honda. He informed Honda that he had a group of engineers from different teams who wanted to work for Honda. This led to a meeting between Stepney and Honda's Nick Fry at Heathrow Airport on May 9. At this meeting Stepney told Fry that Coughlan was involved in the plan.
On May 21, according to Ferrari, Stepney put white powder in the fuel tanks of the Ferrari F1 cars that were due to go to the Monaco Grand Prix on May 27. Stepney denies this and says that he is being framed.
It was in the same period that Coughlan asked McLaren Racing's Jonathan Neale for an early release from his contract. Neale then suggested that they meet away from the McLaren factory to discuss this - because the glass walls in the McLaren factory make it easy for people to see if there is a lively discussion going on. It was agreed that they would meet for breakfast at a local golf club on May 25. It is alleged that during this meeting Coughlan tried to show Neale documents, but McLaren says that he refused to look at them.
Within a few days of this meeting Coughlan and Stepney met Fry at Heathrow on June 1, and discussed doing a deal.
There have also been suggestions that the two men also made an approach to Toyota.
By June 7, the F1 circus had moved to Canada and it was there that McLaren and Ferrari agreed to work together to solve disputes over the regulations, without the FIA having to be involved. While the teams were in Canada and the United States, Mike Coughlan's wife Trudy took the Ferrari documents to a copying shop in Surrey and asked for them to be put on a disk. She paid with a personal cheque. The original documents were then destroyed, apparently having been shredded and then burned in the back garden of Coughlan's house.
At some point in this period Ferrari learned via the copying shop in Surrey that Coughlan was in possession of Ferrari documents.
There were rumours at Indianapolis that there was about to be a new espionage scandal and stories circulated that Nigel Stepney had been arrested. These were not true, but on June 21 Ferrari announced that Stepney was under criminal investigation in Italy. Stepney responded the following day saying that he was the victim of "a dirty tricks campaign".
In this period Ferrari went to the High Court in London and obtained a search warrant for Mike Coughlan's house. They found disks containing the data from the Ferrari paperwork. McLaren immediately announced that it had suspended Coughlan. The Coughlans appeared in court in London on July 10 and the following day agreed to provide Ferrari with sworn affidavits.
The rest of the story is now public information.
The schedule above may not be 100% correct

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 13:01

then here is the latest release from Ron Dennis. It is well worth reading as it appears to dispell many assumptions made so far.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32299

It is a lengthy read, so get yourself a large cup of coffee before you start.

Thank you.

My reading of this is that there is a sense of very genuine grievance on the part of Dennis and McLaren that goes beyond any attempt to merely avoid censure.

seppefan

2nd August 2007, 13:31

Bagwan

2nd August 2007, 13:42

Ferrari it seems will come out of this much the worse for making so many accusations when the whole episode started with them through no fault of theirs.

Ferrari cheated. Stepney blew the whistle. Ferrari realised that Stepney knew too much and tried to scew his integrity by making up the white powder story ( did anyone believe that at the time ?). Then Stepney behaved like a traitor in my view by passing all the docs to Coughlan ( if he did ). Ferrari now try to pass the buck onto McLaren. BS. Sorry but I really hope Ferrari get a wopping penalty for wasting time post the FIA inquiry. Can Brawn seriously return.......

Ferrari wasn't cheating .
That's why , even though the FIA knew they had used the flex-floor in Melbourne , they didn't sanction them .
Instead , they clarified the rulebook to make them illegal .

Had Stepney been "blowing the whistle" he would have done it in the direction of the FIA , not a competitor .
Ron talks a lot about protecting the "whistle blower" , then names Stepney directly , and says they put up a fire-wall to stop him .

The white powder is really the only thing I see as fishy here .

ioan

2nd August 2007, 14:46

Ferrari wasn't cheating .
That's why , even though the FIA knew they had used the flex-floor in Melbourne , they didn't sanction them .
Instead , they clarified the rulebook to make them illegal .

Had Stepney been "blowing the whistle" he would have done it in the direction of the FIA , not a competitor .
Ron talks a lot about protecting the "whistle blower" , then names Stepney directly , and says they put up a fire-wall to stop him .

Exactly, and the only reason for Ron's latest comments is to try to discredit Ferrari knowing that McLaren are already on the back foot after being declared guilty.

tinchote

2nd August 2007, 15:13

The problem is Ferrari's who have yet to produce the evidence to back up their very public allegations, despite being given the opportunity to do so (contrary to what Todt claims). They will have yet another opportunity to do so at the appeal and if they are able to produce anything new which proves that McLaren made use of Ferrari documents that were in Coughlan's possession then good for them. If that happens then McLaren deserve to be penalised.

Arrows, the problem is RD's incoherence when talking about this topic. I'm quoting from the link that Valve posted (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32299):

1) RD says "Ferrari run an illegal car in Australia". That's a lie. The car passed scrutineering several times during that GP, and there was nothing outside the regulations. Afterwards, a clarification by FIA deemed the floor illegal. This is no different than McLaren's third pedal in 98 or the Michelin tyres in 03: was McLaren "running an illegal car" back then? Hypocrite.

2) He first says that Stepney told McLaren about the rear wing separator, and later he says that it was "visible for everyone": but they needed someone to tell them? Yeah right.

3) As has already been mentioned here, it is ok to encourage employees to secretly tell the authorities about something not legal within their team. RD seems to think that the right path to do this is to tell your competition first :rolleyes:

4) And he keeps talking about the "illegal device". If we have to believe him, we have to assume that the marshalls at Australia are corrupt? Why doesn't he ask for punishment for these officials?

5) He says McLaren "installed a firewall" so that Coughlan avoided receiving emails from Stepney. So, McLaren's computer technicians cannot make one of their users to filter his email. I have to assume then that McLaren has a huge problem with spam :p :

6) RD says that Ferrari has no evidence of anyone other than Coughlan at McLaren with knowledge of the documents. Yet Ferrari has Coughlan's affidavit saying otherwise. He says that Coughlan showed a diagram "but without saying where it came from", and that Neale apparently "closed his eyes" or something ( ;) ) when Coughlan tried to show him. But they didn't know, yeah right. Try to imagine the situation: Coughlan tries to show Ferrari's documents to Neale, he refuses to see them, and he doesn't mention the episode to anyone else at McLaren's :eek:

7) When he addresses the use of the Ferrari documents (quite unnecessarily, I would say, if he had already established that the documents never were at their factory), he only mentions use of "performance enhacements". As has been mentioned several times, of course they cannot use Ferrari's blueprints in April or May to do any changes to their car already running races. But the documents were about way more than just drawings of the car. There was a lot of operational data, which of course he doesn't mention.

8) Next he says that "Coughlan acted secretly", after having mentioned at least two attempts of Coughlan to show the documents to other people at McLaren.

9) The last few paragraphs sound quite convincing to me. But they don't change the previous contents of the letter.

In summary, quite a liar, our friend RD, and a bad one for that matter.

luvracin

2nd August 2007, 15:26

The "F1 Circus" travels around the world together and spends most of the year together. They're really one big incestuous family.

I'm kinda surprised this type of thing doesn't happen more often.... or is this just a case of someone getting caught.

At the end of the day, the FIA is going to have to just kill the whole thing for the good of the sport. Because to penalise Mclaren is going to be seen by half the world as unfair, while NOT penalising them will be looked on as equally unfair by the other half.

Just this thread is a good example of this, as people reading the same articles are using the same article to justify completely opposed points of view.

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 15:27

Exactly, and the only reason for Ron's latest comments is to try to discredit Ferrari knowing that McLaren are already on the back foot after being declared guilty.
So his detailed letter is not a response to the fact that Ferrari have refused to accept the FIA hearing verdict, despite being allowed to present their evidence and take part in the procedings, and have repeatedly made unproven allegations via the media without producing any new evidence to back them up?

Me-thinks you oversimplify things a little :) but Max has given Ferrari another opportunity. If they have the evidence then there shouldn't be a problem. If not...Well, let's wait and see.

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 15:52

RD says "Ferrari run an illegal car in Australia". That's a lie. The car passed scrutineering several times during that GP, and there was nothing outside the regulations. Afterwards, a clarification by FIA deemed the floor illegal. This is no different than McLaren's third pedal in 98 or the Michelin tyres in 03: was McLaren "running an illegal car" back then? Hypocrite.

This is my only real problem with the contents of that letter. You could add Jordan's anti-stall device in '99 to that list, of course. Again, not illegal at the time, but clarified as such afterwards. Therefore, I have no problem with Ferrari's Australia victory and don't feel that they deserve censure regarding it.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 15:53

Arrows, the problem is RD's incoherence when talking about this topic. I'm quoting from the link that Valve posted (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32299):

1) RD says "Ferrari run an illegal car in Australia". That's a lie. The car passed scrutineering several times during that GP, and there was nothing outside the regulations. Afterwards, a clarification by FIA deemed the floor illegal. This is no different than McLaren's third pedal in 98 or the Michelin tyres in 03: was McLaren "running an illegal car" back then? Hypocrite.

2) He first says that Stepney told McLaren about the rear wing separator, and later he says that it was "visible for everyone": but they needed someone to tell them? Yeah right.

3) As has already been mentioned here, it is ok to encourage employees to secretly tell the authorities about something not legal within their team. RD seems to think that the right path to do this is to tell your competition first

4) And he keeps talking about the "illegal device". If we have to believe him, we have to assume that the marshalls at Australia are corrupt? Why doesn't he ask for punishment for these officials?

5) He says McLaren "installed a firewall" so that Coughlan avoided receiving emails from Stepney. So, McLaren's computer technicians cannot make one of their users to filter his email. I have to assume then that McLaren has a huge problem with spam

6) RD says that Ferrari has no evidence of anyone other than Coughlan at McLaren with knowledge of the documents. Yet Ferrari has Coughlan's affidavit saying otherwise. He says that Coughlan showed a diagram "but without saying where it came from", and that Neale apparently "closed his eyes" or something ( ;) ) when Coughlan tried to show him. But they didn't know, yeah right. Try to imagine the situation: Coughlan tries to show Ferrari's documents to Neale, he refuses to see them, and he doesn't mention the episode to anyone else at McLaren's :eek:

7) When he addresses the use of the Ferrari documents (quite unnecessarily, I would say, if he had already established that the documents never were at their factory), he only mentions use of "performance enhacements". As has been mentioned several times, of course they cannot use Ferrari's blueprints in April or May to do any changes to their car already running races. But the documents were about way more than just drawings of the car. There was a lot of operational data, which of course he doesn't mention.

8) Next he says that "Coughlan acted secretly", after having mentioned at least two attempts of Coughlan to show the documents to other people at McLaren.

9) The last few paragraphs sound quite convincing to me. But they don't change the previous contents of the letter.

In summary, quite a liar, our friend RD, and a bad one for that matter.

Once again, its a tangled web...when you start telling stories.......But ron just needs to talk to OJ ("I never saw so much blood") Simpson for some sympathy (but definitely NOT advice) about the mess that he keeps diggin himself into :grenade:

Personally I do not believe any of them anymore, not ferrari not maclarent, not mikie, --well ok except for NS, I do believe him when he says he was showering and someone put some white powder in his pants....yeah right :rolleyes:

just what was that "white powder"--most white powder is either flour or coke

Bagwan

2nd August 2007, 15:59

So his detailed letter is not a response to the fact that Ferrari have refused to accept the FIA hearing verdict, despite being allowed to present their evidence and take part in the procedings, and have repeatedly made unproven allegations via the media without producing any new evidence to back them up?

Me-thinks you oversimplify things a little :) but Max has given Ferrari another opportunity. If they have the evidence then there shouldn't be a problem. If not...Well, let's wait and see.

You have Dennis's word against Todt's word on whether there was ample time given to Ferrari to present evidence .
You had a hearing , not a tribunal .
You now have a tribunal .

This trial is a result of the fact that it was questionable whether Ferrari had had enough opportunity to give evidence , combined with the idea that the general public is questioning the original verdict without punishment .

What I hope for in this is the admission from the FIA that they made a mistake here . I won't hold my breath .
Tin lists a lot of logical sounding Ronspeak , and counts the lies .
Why should we believe in anything Ron says ?

Daika

2nd August 2007, 16:17

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40226

cheese, adults behaving like babies. Ron Dennis protects his drivers from the big, scary world. Wheter you support ferrari or mclaren, i think the drivers are big enough not to answer questions, instead of pulling them out of a press conference.

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 16:33

Arrows, the problem is RD's incoherence when talking about this topic...In summary, quite a liar, our friend RD, and a bad one for that matter.
Good points well made tinchote :up: In response to some of them I'd say that:

I've already said that I didn't believe Ferrari's floor was illegal (others here disagree), but the FIA clarification made it so, and all the teams were required to make changes. Therefore, had no clarification been sought, or given, would the floor have been illegal? RD's view is yes it would, and given the FIA's clarification it's hard to disagree. Ferrari's floor was designed to exploit a loophole/omission in the rules and without the clarification it is reasonable to assume it would continue to have been used.

RD doesn't say McLaren needed to be told about the about the rear wing separator by Stepney. He does say both that and the floor "could be and were seen on the Ferrari car prior to the Australian Grand Prix".

Stepney approached Coughlan. He didn't contact McLaren and say "I've got some info, what should I do with it." He sent info to Coughlan. McLaren did not seek or encourage this approach, and had no control over how Stepney decided to whistleblow. Once he sent the info to Coughlan it could, and maybe should, have been passed to the FIA. The means by which the issue of the flexi-floor was raised with the FIA is questionable, but it did maintain Stepney's confidentiality, which is a core part of whistleblowing. As someone who has been involved in that kind of process believe me, I know!!!

I do not believe that McLaren either sought to receive information from Ferrari, nor did they use the information that came into Coughlan's possession, other than that which related to the floor issue.

I also believe that there is more mileage in the Stepney/Ferrari part of the story which has conveniently been set aside for the time being. Whether Stepney did or did not send documents to Coughlan - if he didn't then there is a can or worms that is yet to be opened - is central to aspects of this whole thing.

Also, Ferrari's whole approach to this has been distateful. From the moment they got information that their documents had been copied it seems as if they have set out to pin the whole thing on McLaren, searching for evidence that supports that allegation along the way. So far they have found little, but made much noise.

Perhaps the appeal will find that Ferrari's allegations are well founded and that McLaren have used Ferrari documents and lied all along. In which case, as I have said a number of times, McLaren will deservedly be punished. However, I don't believe Ron Dennis would allow his organisation to act in this way, and I think his reaction to all of shows genuine frustration/anger/disappointment at being wrongly accused.

Time will tell if my opinion is right or wrong. Whichever it is, what was a great season is being wrecked, and will always be coloured by this mess :down:

tinchote

2nd August 2007, 16:48

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 17:03

...things haven't improved with removing his drivers from the press conferences today :down:
At the risk of jumping to RD's defence again ( :p ) that may be a good decision for everyone concerned. Had Alonso been present alongside Kimi the media would have had a field day questioning two people who really are not involved in the off-track dispute.

I'm sure some of the media will do their best to fan the flames between McLaren and Ferrari, but less talk and more racing would be good for everyone this weekend :s mokin:

tinchote

2nd August 2007, 17:27

I'm sure some of the media will do their best to fan the flames between McLaren and Ferrari, but less talk and more racing would be good for everyone this weekend :s mokin:

I totally agree with that :up: I just don't like RD's ways :)

Hendersen

2nd August 2007, 17:34

Haha. Don't let Ferrari present any evidence at the hearings. Don't let my drivers actually give their honest opinions about things. Don't let the public actually know what's going on. ROFLMAO

2nd August 2007, 18:07

On another note, those who are critical of Ron Dennis should read Jean Todt's statement again:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61180

and ask themselves why Todt chose to miss out the fact that that Ferrari prepared and presented their evidence at the FIA hearing in the form of a 118-page document, and were allowed to cross-examine during a hearing that lasted in the region of five and half hours.

Who says it's a fact?

Oh yeah, Ron Dennis.

Funny how you believe him unquestionably....

....funny also that you were willing to have believed Nigel Stepney's claims he was set up (which, of course, Mr Dennis has now confirmed wasn't the case)...

....whilst dismissing Ferrari statements as not been facts.

Atleast we Tifosi don't hide our bias.

I hate to break it to you, old bean, but your institutional bias isn't just showing, it's destroying your credibility.

2nd August 2007, 18:14

Also, Ferrari's whole approach to this has been distateful.

Really? A team that has been the subject of espionage, betrayal and having their designs in the hands of their main rivals designer have been distasteful?

Whereas Mclaren's has been above and beyond reproach, as has Coughlan and your set-up mate Stepney?

Go on, keep them coming, it's entertaining.

Bagwan

2nd August 2007, 18:20

I've already said that I didn't believe Ferrari's floor was illegal (others here disagree), but the FIA clarification made it so, and all the teams were required to make changes. Therefore, had no clarification been sought, or given, would the floor have been illegal? RD's view is yes it would, and given the FIA's clarification it's hard to disagree. Ferrari's floor was designed to exploit a loophole/omission in the rules and without the clarification it is reasonable to assume it would continue to have been used.

RD doesn't say McLaren needed to be told about the about the rear wing separator by Stepney. He does say both that and the floor "could be and were seen on the Ferrari car prior to the Australian Grand Prix".-ArrowsFA1

"Given the FIA's clarification it's hard to disagree" ?

It is for that very reason that one must , as you have stated you do , agree with the FIA and Ferrari(and others) that it was not illegal in Melbourne .

And , of course it would be used if it was legal . As soon as it was clarified they dutifully removed the now offending parts .

If Ron is saying that they were seen prior to the Oz race , then he might have mentioned it then , instead of throwing doubt on Ferrari during the season .
This rather flies in the face of not wanting to bring the championship into disrepute during the season rhetoric with which he is coming up .

ioan

2nd August 2007, 18:58

icsunonove

2nd August 2007, 19:10

Really? A team that has been the subject of espionage, betrayal and having their designs in the hands of their main rivals designer have been distasteful?

Whereas Mclaren's has been above and beyond reproach, as has Coughlan and your set-up mate Stepney?

Go on, keep them coming, it's entertaining.

I don't think anyone here would deny that Ferrari have good reason to be upset that their data was found in the possession of a McLaren employee. But as far as I can tell from all of this, that is all that has actually been shown. Betrayal, probably - espionage, certainly not.

There has not been any evidence presented that supports the allegations that Ferrari have been making to the press that McLaren knew about the 780 pages of documents before suspending Coughlan or used any of that information to their advantage. I'm not aware that Ferrari have even presented material evidence that it was Stepney who sent the documents (and he is still denying it).

So to begin with, McLaren choose not to say anything to the press and wait until the FIA enquiry is over but as a result are assumed by many Ferrari fans to be guilty of all the allegations that Ferrari are making. Now, when McLaren present their side of the story to the press the same set of people choose not to believe it.

No surprise there then, but nor should it surprise the Ferrari fans that a lot of other people don't like the way Ferrari have behaved either and don't believe that every allegation that they make is true.

icsunonove

2nd August 2007, 19:11

Man you are really a legend, a legend of bias!

Coming from you that is priceless

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 19:30

I hate to break it to you, old bean, but your institutional bias isn't just showing, it's destroying your credibility.

It is possible for someone who favours neither McLaren nor Ferrari to have an opinion on the matter, and for that opinion to be that McLaren's version of events is credible in the light of the evidence available thus far. This is certainly my position. Would you accuse me of 'institutional bias'? If you did, you'd be wrong.

Ian McC

2nd August 2007, 19:31

Ian McC

2nd August 2007, 19:32

Man you are really a legend, a legend of bias!

Amazing that you dare even post that!

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 19:39

Funny how you believe him unquestionably....
Well it's easily disproved isn't it. According to Martin Brundle's account there were at least 75 people at the hearing.

....funny also that you were willing to have believed Nigel Stepney's claims he was set up (which, of course, Mr Dennis has now confirmed wasn't the case)...
I apologise for having an opinion. It seems you don't approve.

Stepney has consistently denied sending the 780-page document to Coughlan. In the light of that it is reasonable to question 'if he didn't send it, who did and why?' Also, where has RD "confirmed" that Stepney wasn't set up? How does he know? Why do you chose to believe him in this instance?

....whilst dismissing Ferrari statements as not been facts.
So show where Ferrari have presented facts, as opposed to allegations, that prove McLaren used the 780-page document that were in Coughlan's possession. It is my opinion (apologies again) that Ferrari have used the media very effectively to damage McLaren, and I am not alone in that opinion.

Atleast we Tifosi don't hide our bias.
Good for you.

I hate to break it to you, old bean, but your institutional bias isn't just showing, it's destroying your credibility.
My "credibility", and your opinion of it, matters not one jot, and concerns me even less. What I care about is an open exchange of opinions among those of us who are interested in F1.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 19:51

Ferrari it seems will come out of this much the worse for making so many accusations when the whole episode started with them through no fault of theirs.

Ferrari cheated. Stepney blew the whistle. Ferrari realised that Stepney knew too much and tried to scew his integrity by making up the white powder story ( did anyone believe that at the time ?). Then Stepney behaved like a traitor in my view by passing all the docs to Coughlan ( if he did ). Ferrari now try to pass the buck onto McLaren. BS. Sorry but I really hope Ferrari get a wopping penalty for wasting time post the FIA inquiry. Can Brawn seriously return.......

I suggest you look up the definitions of "whistleblower" and "spy." You'll find that a whistleblower takes his concerns to the proper authorities while a spy takes his knowledge to a competitor for personal gain. Gee, which one of these definitions does Stepney fit???

Using your logic that Ferrari cheated with the flexible floor (although it wasn't banned until Malaysia) then perhaps we should go back and erase all the wins and points earned with McLaren's "2nd brake pedal." According to your definition, that was also cheating since it was subsequently banned.

The pot should be careful what it calls the kettle!!!

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 19:59

If McLaren are guilty because one of their staff got hold of the documents shouldn't Ferrari be responsible because one of their staff gave them away? Not only have they failed to keep control of sensitive material but they've allowed one of their staff to pass these onto another person.

How many times is this question going to be asked?

I'll answer it one more time (and hopefully some of you will read it or pay someone to read it to you if you're not capable.)

Should the victim of a crime receive the same sentence as the criminal? McLaren stood to gain from having Ferrari's data, Ferrari could only lose by having their confidential information stolen and used by someone else!

I chuckled a bit at your twisted thinking as to Stepney "giving them (the documents) away!" It's called stealing - theft occurs when you give something away that is not yours to give away!!!!

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 19:59

It is for that very reason that one must , as you have stated you do , agree with the FIA and Ferrari(and others) that it was not illegal in Melbourne .
:up:

Ferrari clearly found a solution that was not covered by the rules, and therefore not illegal. Teams constantly push the boundaries of the rules, and the FIA are constantly asked for clarification on technical issues. It's normal practice.

The only difference here is in how information reached the FIA that led them to issue a clarification, which in turn meant that every team (not just Ferrari) had to make changes to their floor in order to confirm to the revised test.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:04

I'm not aware that Ferrari have even presented material evidence that it was Stepney who sent the documents (and he is still denying it).

Except RD STATED that the documents were given to Coughlan by Stepney at a meeting in Barcelona!! AND that he was aware of the flexible floor in Melbourne which could only have come from the technical documents (which was months before he said that McLaren was aware of the documents in July.)

So I guess, technically, Stepney didn't "send" them to Coughlan and Stepney then was the "unknown courier" that delivered them to Coughlan.

Can you not see the changes in McLaren's/Coughlan's/Dennis's story???? Open your eyes man!!!

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:10

Stepney has consistently denied sending the 780-page document to Coughlan. In the light of that it is reasonable to question 'if he didn't send it, who did and why?' Also, where has RD "confirmed" that Stepney wasn't set up? How does he know? Why do you chose to believe him in this instance?

Read RD's statement that says Stepney met with Coughlan in Barcelona and Coughlan returned with the documents. Pretty clear wording from RD it seems to me. Why DON'T YOU believe him???

tinchote

2nd August 2007, 20:10

:up:

Ferrari clearly found a solution that was not covered by the rules, and therefore not illegal. Teams constantly push the boundaries of the rules, and the FIA are constantly asked for clarification on technical issues. It's normal practice.

The only difference here is in how information reached the FIA that led them to issue a clarification, which in turn meant that every team (not just Ferrari) had to make changes to their floor in order to confirm to the revised test.

Agreed. And then we have Ron Dennis, who we should assume knows more about F1 than anyone of us, saying that Ferrari's car was illegal. I can only think of two possible explanations:

1) Ron Dennis is a liar;

2) Ron Dennis is an idiot.

Neither of the options do a lot for McLaren's credibility.

Ian McC

2nd August 2007, 20:14

How many times is this question going to be asked?

I'll answer it one more time (and hopefully some of you will read it or pay someone to read it to you if you're not capable.)

Should the victim of a crime receive the same sentence as the criminal? McLaren stood to gain from having Ferrari's data, Ferrari could only lose by having their confidential information stolen and used by someone else!

I chuckled a bit at your twisted thinking as to Stepney "giving them (the documents) away!" It's called stealing - theft occurs when you give something away that is not yours to give away!!!!

Your blinked view didn't allow you to read the post properly, I am sure Ferrari over the last few weeks have been looking very closely at their security to stop this happening again.

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 20:17

Except RD STATED that the documents were given to Coughlan by Stepney at a meeting in Barcelona!! AND that he was aware of the flexible floor in Melbourne which could only have come from the technical documents (which was months before he said that McLaren was aware of the documents in July.)

Could it really only have come from those documents? Somehow, I doubt it.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:31

So his detailed letter is not a response to the fact that Ferrari have refused to accept the FIA hearing verdict, despite being allowed to present their evidence and take part in the procedings, and have repeatedly made unproven allegations via the media without producing any new evidence to back them up?

If you compare the most recent letter with his previous statements you can see changes in things like the timeline, the most recent "fact" that Stepney gave the documents to Coughlan at a meeting in Barcelona? The "fact" that he was aware of the flexible floor and wing separator at Melbourne BUT was not aware of the documents until July? It seems that all the "new evidence" is coming from Ron and much of it contradicts his "old evidence!"

As long as Ferrari keep the pressure on, Ron keeps digging his own grave.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:34

Could it really only have come from those documents? Somehow, I doubt it.

It would be an easy way to find out, unless Stepney told McLaren directly which would be a further example of espionage. It would be one of those things that's a bit difficult to detect by photography or simply viewing the car while in the pits.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 20:41

Agreed. And then we have Ron Dennis, who we should assume knows more about F1 than anyone of us, saying that Ferrari's car was illegal. I can only think of two possible explanations:

1) Ron Dennis is a liar;

2) Ron Dennis is an idiot.

Neither of the options do a lot for McLaren's credibility.

RD is just trying to determine who is a true Maclarent fan who will always drink the Koolaid be it laced with cyanide or some other white powder, and be good like Hamie, do as they told, accept whatever he says as the ONLY truth known to man, and defend MacLarent to the bitter end. Very reasonable way to weed out the disloyal or fair weather fans and to confirm those like Hamie who "have McLaren in their blood.." as true believers
, .... :imubash:

I am still trying to figure out what he was doing in the shower with NS, putting that white powder in the pants pocket of NS..or maybe it was just :love: ??

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:42

Your blinked view didn't allow you to read the post properly, I am sure Ferrari over the last few weeks have been looking very closely at their security to stop this happening again.

So which part of my "blinkered view" was wrong? You see no problem with an employee "giving away" confidential information? You feel that victims and criminals should get the same punishment? You feel that Ferrari profited from having their documents stolen? You feel that McLaren could not profit from Ferrari's documents?

Which point was I wrong in? Please point it out so I can correct my way of thinking.

BTW - I didn't mention anything about Ferrari improving their security (which I'm sure they have done.)

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 20:48

How many times is this question going to be asked?

I'll answer it one more time (and hopefully some of you will read it or pay someone to read it to you if you're not capable.)

Should the victim of a crime receive the same sentence as the criminal? ..... away!!!!

Usually as in the case of murder, and even with theft, in these days the victim has already been punished far more than the criminal...in the old days, justice was an eye for an eye.... :eek:

You just got it backward, it should be should the criminal receive the same puishment as intended or already inflicted upon the victim.....and the answer before we became civilized was always YES, sort of like do unto to others...and other such nonsense

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 20:58

Usually as in the case of murder, and even with theft, in these days the victim has already been punished far more than the criminal...in the old days, justice was an eye for an eye.... :eek:

You just got it backward, it should be should the criminal receive the same puishment as intended or already inflicted upon the victim.....and the answer before we became civilized was always YES, sort of like do unto to others...and other such nonsense

That would be a strange punishment - have McLaren turn over all documentation of their car to Ferrari for the next 2 seasons. ;)

Better yet, make it public. It would certainly give us something interesting to read!

Ian McC

2nd August 2007, 21:05

So which part of my "blinkered view" was wrong? You see no problem with an employee "giving away" confidential information? You feel that victims and criminals should get the same punishment? You feel that Ferrari profited from having their documents stolen? You feel that McLaren could not profit from Ferrari's documents?

Which point was I wrong in? Please point it out so I can correct my way of thinking.

BTW - I didn't mention anything about Ferrari improving their security (which I'm sure they have done.)

Nope, you didn't, that was my point. I didn't say anything about victims, criminals or guilt, the point I was making was that Ferrari need to tighten their security.

Seeing as you insist on mentioning all this, if everyone is guilty as charged (anyone who knows the law feel free to correct me, I'm no lawyer :D ) then Stepney is guilty of theft and Coughlan of receiving stolen goods.

Oh and as Stepney doesn't seemed to have been paid for it then he did give them away.

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 21:09

It would be an easy way to find out, unless Stepney told McLaren directly which would be a further example of espionage. It would be one of those things that's a bit difficult to detect by photography or simply viewing the car while in the pits.

'A bit difficult', maybe, but possibly not impossible. And the general F1 rumour mill cannot be discounted either.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 21:16

Nope, you didn't, that was my point. I didn't say anything about victims, criminals or guilt, the point I was making was that Ferrari need to tighten their security.

Seeing as you insist on mentioning all this, if everyone is guilty as charged (anyone who knows the law feel free to correct me, I'm no lawyer :D ) then Stepney is guilty of theft and Coughlan of receiving stolen goods.

Oh and as Stepney doesn't seemed to have been paid for it then he did give them away.

I missed your point, then. Yes, Ferrari need to tighten their security (I would bet every team is doing that now.) One way to do that is to prosecute violators to the fullest extent to prevent others from thinking about it in the future. (Then there is always the "cavity search as you go home each night" theory!)

OK. Stepney "gave" the documents away despite the fact that they weren't his to "give" unless something turns up that shows he benefited in some way such as promise of employment, etc.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 21:18

'A bit difficult', maybe, but possibly not impossible. And the general F1 rumour mill cannot be discounted either.

True, but it's the source of the rumor mill that is concerning. Was it started by Coughlan or someone else in McLaren? We'll probably never know that one.

BDunnell

2nd August 2007, 21:23

True, but it's the source of the rumor mill that is concerning. Was it started by Coughlan or someone else in McLaren? We'll probably never know that one.

It could equally have been someone in another team, or a journalist.

Still, this is the element of the whole thing that probably matters least, because the Ferraris were not illegal in Melbourne.

ioan

2nd August 2007, 21:29

ioan

2nd August 2007, 21:37

Here's Macaluso's answer to Ron:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61279

Short and clever.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 21:40

That would be a strange punishment - have McLaren turn over all documentation of their car to Ferrari for the next 2 seasons. ;)

Better yet, make it public. It would certainly give us something interesting to read!
Folks like us probably could not understand all that jargon anyway :dozey:

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 21:47

Here's Macaluso's answer to Ron:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61279

Short and clever.

Ron would do well to limit his words in a similar manner. His last statement had too many contradictions with things he stated earlier.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 21:48

'A bit difficult', maybe, but possibly not impossible. And the general F1 rumour mill cannot be discounted either.

as i said before RD is just trying to determine who is a true Maclarent fan who will always drink the Koolaid be it laced with cyanide or some other white powder, and be good like Hamie, accept whatever he says as the ONLY truth known to man, and defend MacLarent to the bitter end. Very reasonable way to weed out the disloyal or fair weather fans and to confirm those like Hamie who "have McLaren in their blood.." as true believers
, .... :imubash:

AND LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE a winner!!!!! And as the lucky winner you will recieve one copy of Mike's very own notarized affidavit after RD copied it at a local copy shop where he saw it but did not look at it

PS
I am still trying to figure out what he was doing in the shower with NS, putting that white powder in the pants pocket of NS..or maybe it was just :love: ??

ArrowsFA1

2nd August 2007, 22:30

Ron would do well to limit his words in a similar manner. His last statement had too many contradictions with things he stated earlier.
Your advice applies equally to Jean Todt. If Ron's statements are contradictory, then Jean's throwing as much mud as he can in the hope some sticks :p

F1 is the loser :dozey:

LTalbot

2nd August 2007, 22:53

Seems pretty obvious that there is plenty of Kool Aid being consumed by both Ferrari and McLaren loyalists.

wmcot

2nd August 2007, 23:08

Your advice applies equally to Jean Todt. If Ron's statements are contradictory, then Jean's throwing as much mud as he can in the hope some sticks :p

F1 is the loser :dozey:

True, that's why I'd like to see all this come out in the open.

markabilly

2nd August 2007, 23:43

Your advice applies equally to Jean Todt. If Ron's statements are contradictory, then Jean's throwing as much mud as he can in the hope some sticks :p

F1 is the loser :dozey:

Or you cant watch any Hungarian grand prix !!!

Man this is better than prowrestlin on Tv....body slam that little frenchman... :D

Bagwan

3rd August 2007, 00:20

:up:

Ferrari clearly found a solution that was not covered by the rules, and therefore not illegal. Teams constantly push the boundaries of the rules, and the FIA are constantly asked for clarification on technical issues. It's normal practice.

The only difference here is in how information reached the FIA that led them to issue a clarification, which in turn meant that every team (not just Ferrari) had to make changes to their floor in order to confirm to the revised test.

There is a when as well , Arrows . How early did they , through Coughlan , know ?

And , I must mention that it was every team having to make changes ; that is , every team but Ron's . That does make a bit of difference .

Is that why any team may make submissions at the trial ?

The more I hear , the more guilty Ron and his team looks .

Valve Bounce

3rd August 2007, 00:44

Arrows, as I said in my point 9, I do agree with RD that this has been blown out of proportion. And in any case this will end up being dismissed, because otherwise it is too big a mess.

In all fairness, I don't really understand Ferrari's position. Unless they are in possession of information that clarifies the situation and has not been released.

But I still don't like the way RD is lying, and things haven't improved with removing his drivers from the press conferences today :down:

I think the guy is over-emotional and confused.

However, I certainly don't want this whole schemozzle to affect what has, so far been an excellent year for F1. I still hope Kimi wins, but he is pushing shyte uphill now :(

ArrowsFA1

3rd August 2007, 08:26

And , I must mention that it was every team having to make changes ; that is , every team but Ron's . That does make a bit of difference.
It might if it were true, but the revised tests introduced by the FIA in April affected everyone (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58471).

The FIA introduced a revised test after Austrialia where the cars were tested without any of the supporting devices that were allowed to be fitted in the past. According to Autosport: "This comes amid suspicions that some teams may have been using these support devices to cleverly resist the FIA tests but then allow the floor of the car to flex up at high speed - improving a car's aerodynamics and therefore straightline speed."

BMW were one team to claim (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/57818)that they had made no changes to their car as a result of this test.

In April, amid fears that some teams were still trying to exploit the regulations, the FIA revised the test again (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58340).

....The "fact" that he was aware of the flexible floor and wing separator at Melbourne BUT was not aware of the documents until July? It seems that all the "new evidence" is coming from Ron and much of it contradicts his "old evidence!".
There always has been a clear distinction between the email highlighting the floor and wing, and the 780-page document. They are not one and the same thing, but for Ferrari to make their allegations stick they need to blur the distinction i.e. McLaren used the email so obviously they must have used the 780-page document.

The best Ferrari have been able to come up with so far is: "The difference between the two teams [in the world championship standings] is so close that it is likely that McLaren's superior number of points is a consequence of its chief designer having the Ferrari documents." (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61145)) They say that McLaren had an "unfair advantage" and that Ferrari would "suffer loss of at least 5.5 million euro" if they lost the WCC and "suffer loss in respect of damage to the Ferrari brand".

That's all very well, but it all hinges on their circumstantial use of the word "likely" and the lack of evidence to date that backs up their claims. Perhaps we will hear evidence at the appeal.

ArrowsFA1

3rd August 2007, 10:45

Nigel Stepney has denied having told the McLaren team about Ferrari's use of a moveable floor device in their car at the Australian Grand Prix.

"It's not true that I revealed those irregularities," Gazzetta dello Sport quoted Stepney's lawyer Sonia Bartolini as saying on his behalf. "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1. At McLaren they knew without the need for whistle blowing."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285

What next? :crazy:

nightingalecars

3rd August 2007, 12:31

Or you cant watch any Hungarian grand prix !!!

Man this is better than prowrestlin on Tv....body slam that little frenchman... :D

:D Surprised Bernie hasn't thought of this already!! "PRO WRESTLING F1 STARS!!" kinda has a ring to it ;)

BDunnell

3rd August 2007, 13:20

It all serves to make me even more certain that the moving floor is an entirely separate issue.

wmcot

3rd August 2007, 20:54

There always has been a clear distinction between the email highlighting the floor and wing, and the 780-page document. They are not one and the same thing, but for Ferrari to make their allegations stick they need to blur the distinction i.e. McLaren used the email so obviously they must have used the 780-page document.

But you must admit that the possibility exists that the information came from the documents.

Conversely, if McLaren had never received the documents, that possibility would not exist.

trevortherevver

4th August 2007, 04:57

Can someone who knows about these things (as opposed to someone who has an opinion) clear something up for me?

I was under the impression that, in France, the law assumed you were guilty until proved innocent unlike many countries where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. Is the the case?

If so, does that presumption of guilt apply to rulings of the FIA which is, after all, based in Paris?

Thanks in advance.

Valve Bounce

4th August 2007, 05:54

wmcot

4th August 2007, 07:24

I have to agree with Flavio in his latest comments that this whole thing reaches a final conclusion in the Appeals Court. My biggest fear is that if McLaren are punished by the court, will we have another appeal? This could go on forever...but let's hope not.

ArrowsFA1

4th August 2007, 10:48

But you must admit that the possibility exists that the information came from the documents.

Conversely, if McLaren had never received the documents, that possibility would not exist.
Information regarding Ferrari's floor did come from an email received by Coughlan. That is not in dispute, and is something that McLaren have acknowledged.

The issue of the 780-page document which was either sent or handed to Coughlan is a different issue and, in my opinion, should be seen in the light of Stepney & Coughlan making plans to move elsewhere, possibly to Honda. McLaren have consistently denied having any knowledge of this document before the 3rd July.

It is being argued that as McLaren used the email, there is the possibility that they would be prepared to use the document as well and yes, that possibility does exist. Obviously, as far as Ferrari are concerned, the document contained confidential information that could be helpful to any rival.

Ron Dennis has consistently denied that McLaren saw, let alone made use of, this document. Nick Fry has also said nothing was shown to him at meetings with Stepney/Coughlan. Why should one be believed and not the other? The common link between the two is Stepney/Coughlan's possession of a Ferrari document.

Daika

4th August 2007, 22:55

"Ron Dennis on Saturday said his Ferrari counterpart Jean Todt turned down an offer to settle the espionage scandal away from the courts."

http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/070804204508.shtml

Stupid Ron, what does he think!! espionage, possible gaining advantage on track and he thinks ferrari will settle that ofcourt?

They want Mclaren to be kicked out or at least point reduction. Doesn't make mclaren case more credible if they got nothing to hide. It also contradicts their own statements that they are confident in the end they will be cleared.

And how the hell does a espionage case get settled? this is to serious to be settle out of court.

DonnieDarco

4th August 2007, 23:21

Has anyone heard of another issue Ferrari have with Maclaren, relating to the Vodafone decals on the Mac cars?

trevortherevver

6th August 2007, 21:04

Another thing I don't understand is why Coughlan was given a 780 page document on paper.

All the information would have been stored at Ferrari in electronic form and putting together 780 pages of stuff sounds like hard work. It would have been much easier to burn it all to a DVD. Smaller and lighter to smuggle out of the office that way.

Of course, if they had done that to start with, or the Coughlans had bought a cheap scanner, we would never of heard about this affair.

Garry Walker

6th August 2007, 21:08

Ron was caught lying at Hungary already, lets hope they catch him at the Court of Appeal too

wmcot

7th August 2007, 07:22

Has anyone heard of another issue Ferrari have with Maclaren, relating to the Vodafone decals on the Mac cars?

Only a bit of a spoof by PitPass.com

wmcot

7th August 2007, 07:26

leopard

7th August 2007, 07:35

And how the hell does a espionage case get settled? this is to serious to be settle out of court.

Let's have a seat in a corner of cafe, and talk?

:s mokin:

leopard

7th August 2007, 07:38

Why should be getting desperate, they are one-two leading ;)

tinchote

7th August 2007, 07:39

Let's have a seat in a corner of cafe, and talk?

:s mokin:

I guess it's more like "I'll pay you this", or "I'll give you this" :D

leopard

7th August 2007, 07:42

I guess it's more like "I'll pay you this", or "I'll give you this" :D
usually, but this time Dennis was asking and Todt is to pay :D

ArrowsFA1

7th August 2007, 09:19

Sounds like Ron is becoming desperate.
Desperate...or practical? Stepneygate has already damaged both McLaren and F1 through allegations, implied irregularities, but little fact. Therefore it is in the interests of McLaren, and F1, for it to be resolved.

Unfortunately, by his response (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61428), Jean Todt has done nothing to dispel the suggestion that Ferrari want to inflict maximum damage on their championship rivals.

tinchote

7th August 2007, 09:37

Desperate...or practical? Stepneygate has already damaged both McLaren and F1 through allegations, implied irregularities, but little fact. Therefore it is in the interests of McLaren, and F1, for it to be resolved.

Unfortunately, by his response (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61428), Jean Todt has done nothing to dispel the suggestion that Ferrari want to inflict maximum damage on their championship rivals.

Arrows, there is nothing "practical" in lying the way he did this weekend and regarding the Stepney-gate. The account (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/) of Saturday afternoon at the McLaren centre, together with the lies, show that RD is not doing very good PR lately.

ArrowsFA1

7th August 2007, 10:16

Arrows, there is nothing "practical" in lying the way he did this weekend and regarding the Stepney-gate. The account (http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/) of Saturday afternoon at the McLaren centre, together with the lies, show that RD is not doing very good PR lately.
What lies regarding Stepneygate? So McLaren had a shambolic pitstop during qualifying, and an equally shambolic press conference. Good for them.

I was referring to RD's comment that "we hope and would like to find a solution between the teams as opposed to one that is the subject of a more aggressive and damaging process for Formula One."

That is a practical approach what is becoming a bigger and bigger mess for F1 as a whole. It's as if the origins of this whole thing don't matter at all any more. The media are loving it and feeding off the whole thing like a pack of wolves, and forums like this are no better.

Flat.tyres

7th August 2007, 14:29

Information regarding Ferrari's floor did come from an email received by Coughlan. That is not in dispute, and is something that McLaren have acknowledged.

The issue of the 780-page document which was either sent or handed to Coughlan is a different issue and, in my opinion, should be seen in the light of Stepney & Coughlan making plans to move elsewhere, possibly to Honda. McLaren have consistently denied having any knowledge of this document before the 3rd July.

It is being argued that as McLaren used the email, there is the possibility that they would be prepared to use the document as well and yes, that possibility does exist. Obviously, as far as Ferrari are concerned, the document contained confidential information that could be helpful to any rival.

Ron Dennis has consistently denied that McLaren saw, let alone made use of, this document. Nick Fry has also said nothing was shown to him at meetings with Stepney/Coughlan. Why should one be believed and not the other? The common link between the two is Stepney/Coughlan's possession of a Ferrari document.

this is what Ive been trying to get across all along. within McLaren, Ferrari and the FIA, it was known that they were 2 seperate issues. the problem is that Todt (or whoever leaked information to the Itallian press) kept trying top make out that it was all one thing.

email about floor = whistleblowing = no problem
780 page dossier = MC and NS acting alone in their best interests.

7th August 2007, 14:44

email about floor = whistleblowing = no problem

Actually, it's a big problem.

Had the whistle been blown in the direction of the FIA, then there would be no problem.

Much as he would love to be the sole arbitor of all things, Ron Dennis is not the head of organising body of world motorsport and therefore his organisation was the incorrect recipient.

7th August 2007, 14:50

I was referring to RD's comment that "we hope and would like to find a solution between the teams as opposed to one that is the subject of a more aggressive and damaging process for Formula One."

That is a practical approach what is becoming a bigger and bigger mess for F1 as a whole. It's as if the origins of this whole thing don't matter at all any more. The media are loving it and feeding off the whole thing like a pack of wolves, and forums like this are no better.

Well, it is a practical approach if your name is Ron.

Flat.tyres

7th August 2007, 14:59

Actually, it's a big problem.

Had the whistle been blown in the direction of the FIA, then there would be no problem.

Much as he would love to be the sole arbitor of all things, Ron Dennis is not the head of organising body of world motorsport and therefore his organisation was the incorrect recipient.

come on man, it would have been practically impossible to have taken it to the FIA. it has more leaks than a fishnet condom.

if Nigel wanted to blow his brains out, then confidentially going to the FIA was a good first step.

this way, he could remain incognito.

I suppose it would have been better if nobody mentioned that Ferrari had found a way to bypass the rules wouldnt it ;)

tinchote

7th August 2007, 16:16

What lies regarding Stepneygate? So McLaren had a shambolic pitstop during qualifying, and an equally shambolic press conference. Good for them.

I was referring to RD's comment that "we hope and would like to find a solution between the teams as opposed to one that is the subject of a more aggressive and damaging process for Formula One."

That is a practical approach what is becoming a bigger and bigger mess for F1 as a whole. It's as if the origins of this whole thing don't matter at all any more. The media are loving it and feeding off the whole thing like a pack of wolves, and forums like this are no better.

Arrows, RD's lies go well beyond last weekend. He publishes this letter where he keeps saying "Ferrari run an illegal car in Australia", and that what Stepney did was the perfect thing (that you tell about your company's wrongs to the competition and not to the authorities). And after that he wants to sit down with Todt and talk? :mark:

come on man, it would have been practically impossible to have taken it to the FIA. it has more leaks than a fishnet condom.

I'm interested in your sources for this. Year after year, the FIA holds confidential information from all the teams, and constantly mantains confidential communication with the teams regarding their car development. And now you know that they leak information :rolleyes: Care to mention any example?

Flat.tyres

7th August 2007, 17:38

I'm interested in your sources for this. Year after year, the FIA holds confidential information from all the teams, and constantly mantains confidential communication with the teams regarding their car development. And now you know that they leak information :rolleyes: Care to mention any example?

well, we have members prejudging the outcome of a hearing before it occurs, ITV commentators being given inside information about a closed hearing after the fact, members claiming they opposed the verdict in contradiction to the official statement and thats just this story. lets not go into EU investigations into anti-trust, extortion, abusing dominant position, imposing unreasonable restrictions etc, etc, etc.

7th August 2007, 17:55

come on man, it would have been practically impossible to have taken it to the FIA. it has more leaks than a fishnet condom.

if Nigel wanted to blow his brains out, then confidentially going to the FIA was a good first step.

this way, he could remain incognito.

I suppose it would have been better if nobody mentioned that Ferrari had found a way to bypass the rules wouldnt it ;)

Firstly, the Ferrari floor was legal. It was within the rules as they were written at the time. Subsequently, the rules were re-written, making the floor illegal had it been used again.
Since you need a basic lesson in legal affairs, here is a simple and basic legal point taught to under-graduate lawyers on day one.....
If you commit an act that later becomes illegal, you cannot be charged with committing a crime.

Even the least learned of the legal profession could tell you that. It appears that only you and Ron Dennis don't understand, but anyway....

Since the Ferrari floor was, according to yourself and Ron Dennis illegal and therefore an attempt to cheat, even though it passed scrutineering at Melbourne, it therefore has to be your logic that Mclaren's 4-pedal brake/steer system was also illegal and an attempt to cheat.

Evidence that your beloved Ron is capable of bending the rules, unless of course a different set of values are applied.

Which wouldn't surprise me.

Secondly, it is laughable beyond contempt for Ron and you to argue that it was better to go to the opposition than to the governing body.

Ron Dennis signed the Concorde Agreement, then happily breaks it when it suits him, and you still try to tell us he is honest and credible.

Yeah, right.

No wonder Todt and Ferrari don't want to help.

Flat.tyres

7th August 2007, 18:05

Firstly, the Ferrari floor was legal. It was within the rules as they were written at the time. Subsequently, the rules were re-written, making the floor illegal had it been used again.
Since you need a basic lesson in legal affairs, here is a simple and basic legal point taught to under-graduate lawyers on day one.....
If you commit an act that later becomes illegal, you cannot be charged with committing a crime.

Even the least learned of the legal profession could tell you that. It appears that only you and Ron Dennis don't understand, but anyway....

Since the Ferrari floor was, according to yourself and Ron Dennis illegal and therefore an attempt to cheat, even though it passed scrutineering at Melbourne, it therefore has to be your logic that Mclaren's 4-pedal brake/steer system was also illegal and an attempt to cheat.

Evidence that your beloved Ron is capable of bending the rules, unless of course a different set of values are applied.

Which wouldn't surprise me.

Secondly, it is laughable beyond contempt for Ron and you to argue that it was better to go to the opposition than to the governing body.

Ron Dennis signed the Concorde Agreement, then happily breaks it when it suits him, and you still try to tell us he is honest and credible.

Yeah, right.

No wonder Todt and Ferrari don't want to help.

get personal if you want sweetheart :kiss: but lets just blow some holes in the Itallian propaganda you spout.

Was the floor illegal? YES. It contravened the rules. the reason it got through scruitenering is that it contravened the rules in a way that didn't show up in the tests in place.

Question! An athlete takes a new type of performance drug that does not show up on the tests. Is he breaking the law and cheating?

Answer. YES as was proved a couple of years ago with a performance enhancing drug that was not identifyable as it had been engineered to not show up.

They were breaking the rules and hoping not to get caught just as Ferrari were. they were totally against the spitit of the rules just as Ferrari were.

as for McLarens pedal, then there was nothing in the rules about it. It wasn't a test that they managed to fudge but an innovation. Subsequently, it was banned.

lastly, can you please print me out a copy of the Concord agreement to back up what youre saying :p :

7th August 2007, 18:08

as for McLarens pedal, then there was nothing in the rules about it. It wasn't a test that they managed to fudge but an innovation.

It was banned as it contravened the rule that states that the only steering input must be from steering wheel.

Thanks for showing me you have double standards.

7th August 2007, 18:56

Question! An athlete takes a new type of performance drug that does not show up on the tests. Is he breaking the law and cheating?

Answer. YES as was proved a couple of years ago with a performance enhancing drug that was not identifyable as it had been engineered to not show up.

They were breaking the rules and hoping not to get caught just as Ferrari were. they were totally against the spitit of the rules just as Ferrari were.

A totally erroneous and false argument to use.

Taking drugs in athletics is illegal even if the drugs in question cannot be tested. The rules in Athletics specify that performance enhancing drugs of any description are illegal.

There is no relative law to Formula One design.

Finding a design loophole in Formula One is not illegal. It is simply being smart and having a design which interprets the rules in such a way as to conform to the letters of the law.

Ferrari were not charged with any offence, may I remind you.

There is a significant difference between the two that only somebody trying to spin an argument would ignore.

wmcot

7th August 2007, 20:43

Unfortunately, by his response (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61428), Jean Todt has done nothing to dispel the suggestion that Ferrari want to inflict maximum damage on their championship rivals.

I can't say I really blame him since it was his teams secret documents that were stolen. It does show that RD might think his chances of getting off with the FIA again are not as certain as he has been stating in public.

wmcot

7th August 2007, 20:50

as for McLarens pedal, then there was nothing in the rules about it. It wasn't a test that they managed to fudge but an innovation. Subsequently, it was banned.

A bit off topic, but I wonder how McLaren got their extra brake pedal through scrutineering? Didn't anyone notice an extra pedal in the car and ask, "What's that for?" If so, I would like to have heard McLaren's explanation for it!

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 08:20

I can't say I really blame him since it was his teams secret documents that were stolen.
It can't sit comfortably with Todt that a senior member of the Ferrari 'dream team' was the one who apparently stole them.

Todt and Dennis really aren't far apart in all of this. They each have an employee who has dragged their team into a right old mess.

It does show that RD might think his chances of getting off with the FIA again are not as certain as he has been stating in public.
Possibly, although it might indicate that he is well aware of the damage unproven allegations and insinuations are doing to his team and, in the wider context, to F1, so is trying to seek a solution.

The appeal hearing has been set (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61439) for 13th September, so we still have weeks of this to go yet :rolleyes: Two more GP's will be in the record books by then, and another takes place just days after the hearing, leaving just three races to go in what remains one of the best and most closely contested title race in years.

wmcot

8th August 2007, 08:52

It can't sit comfortably with Todt that a senior member of the Ferrari 'dream team' was the one who apparently stole them.

No, I'm sure Todt will have his revenge on Stepney at the trial in Italy. I'm sure Todt (and all Ferrari management) are angry about the whole affair, especially because it was the plans for THEIR car that ended up in the hands of a McLaren employee. I'm sure they will want to do as much damage as possible to persuade any future employee from any team against the idea of stealing secrets.

Right now, if a McLaren employee showed up on Honda's doorstep (just an example, pick any 2 teams you wish) with the plans for the MP4/22 I doubt any Honda employee would touch them.

Flat.tyres

8th August 2007, 11:16

A totally erroneous and false argument to use.

Taking drugs in athletics is illegal even if the drugs in question cannot be tested. The rules in Athletics specify that performance enhancing drugs of any description are illegal.

There is no relative law to Formula One design.

Finding a design loophole in Formula One is not illegal. It is simply being smart and having a design which interprets the rules in such a way as to conform to the letters of the law.

Ferrari were not charged with any offence, may I remind you.

There is a significant difference between the two that only somebody trying to spin an argument would ignore.

thank you for your opinion that it is a false example but I dont agree.

performance enhancing drugs are banned in athletics but people try and get around the testing process. flexible floors are banned in F1 but Ferrari managed to get around the testing process.

Both are illegal.

I do not have the rules at the time for the 4th pedal so cannot confirm your claim but its immaterial to a degree as we are talking about the current situation. Ferrari were found to have a floor that contravened the rules and the testing process was adapted to ensure they couldnt get away with it. would you therefore say that the floor was legal or illegal? I would argue that it was illegal and rather than penalise them, the FIA told them to change it or face sanction. do you disagree with this?

I suppose the example that can be given is that an athlete takes a performance enhancing drug that is not on the banned list and the governing body changes the list to reflect the new drug. The athlete may have got away with it up till then but has been found out and will be penalised heavily if he continues to cheat. I would have also thought he will be watched closely by the governing body as someone willing to cheat if he can get away with it ;)

8th August 2007, 12:05

I do not have the rules at the time for the 4th pedal so cannot confirm your claim but its immaterial to a degree as we are talking about the current situation. Ferrari were found to have a floor that contravened the rules and the testing process was adapted to ensure they couldnt get away with it. would you therefore say that the floor was legal or illegal? I would argue that it was illegal and rather than penalise them, the FIA told them to change it or face sanction. do you disagree with this?

Firstly, the Mclaren 4th pedal situation is not immaterial. It is cut from the same cloth as the Ferrari floor.

Both were an attempt to circumnavigate the regulations. One (Mclaren) fell foul of an existing rule, whereas the Ferrari floor needed an amendment to the regulations for it to be deemed illegal.

The Ferrari floor, like the Renault Mass-damper last year, passed the FIA prescribed test procedure at Melbourne, much in the same way that the Michelin tyres passed the test procedure in Hungary in 2003.

By the time of Malaysia, when the regulations and the prescribed testing procedure had been revised, it would have been illegal.........but it was no longer on the car.

As has been said before, if you are within the regulations, you are not committing an act of illegality.

If you believe that Ferrari were illegal in Melbourne, then by the same logic you have to accuse Renault of illegality in 2006 and all Michelin runners, including the saintly Mclarens, of being illegal pre-Italian GP in 2003.

But I don't expect for one minute your blinkers could allow your own logic to bring about the downfall of your argument.

And, just for the record, I don't believe that Renault were illegal nor that the Michelin runners in 2003 were illegal. They were smart, that's all.

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 13:12

IMHO Ferrari's floor is a side-show. Ron Dennis has already said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260):
"Let me make it clear: McLaren did know about the whistle blowing matters in March 2007 - indeed it reported these matters to the FIA.
The issue surrounding Stepney's email regarding Ferrari's floor was looked at by the original hearing.

One reason for there being so much focus on the email (exibit #1!) is that it supposedly shows McLaren illegally obtaining confidential Ferrari information to gain an advantage. The FIA have not accepted Ferrari's argument that this was the case.

This is crucial because without it Ferrari are having great difficulty proving their accusations that McLaren illegally obtained and used the 780-page document (exibit #2!). They appear to have no evidence, other than Coughlan's possession, that suggests McLaren had any knowledge of the document, let alone used it in any way.

Ferrari need the email to be seen as a case of theft of confidential information used to gain an advantage, because, by association, that makes it appear that McLaren (not Coughlan) could have obtained and used the document to do the same.

8th August 2007, 13:24

The FIA have not accepted Ferrari's argument that this was the case.

Objection M'lud!

Not wishing to get legal on your ass, but that is not exactly accurate. Some might even say it is a gross misrepresentation, but I'm in a good mood so I'll just say it's probably an oversight.

The FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

The original hearing did not allow Ferrari to put their case forward. It was simply a hearing for Mclaren to answer charges from the FIA.

The appeal hearing will allow Ferrari to put forward evidence and for their case to be heard.

If you disengage the Ron-world view for a moment, it might help.

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 13:24

Secondly, it is laughable beyond contempt for Ron and you to argue that it was better to go to the opposition than to the governing body.

But the fact is that Stepney did go to McLaren rather than the FIA. This is no more McLaren's fault than it is Ferrari's.

I agree with Arrows. The floor is a side issue, pure and simple. I think it was stupid of Ron Dennis to have cited it in his response to Ferrari, because it does the rest of his grievance down. The floor was not illegal in Melbourne, pure and simple. As in several previous cases, it subsequently became illegal following clarification, a perfectly normal process.

I will be fascinated to see how Ferrari attempt to prove that their documents were used in any way by McLaren in any way that has proved beneficial to McLaren's 2007 car, race strategy, operations, etc. One thing I feel is interesting is that at no point has there, to my knowledge, been any suggestion of anything specific being copied or used, be it a technical development or something else — no 'smoking gun', if you like.

8th August 2007, 13:29

But the fact is that Stepney did go to McLaren rather than the FIA. This is no more McLaren's fault than it is Ferrari's.

Fair point.

Although, had Mclaren said "We can't accept this because what you are doing is criminal and this is better handled by the FIA", it would have saved an awful lot of suspicion.

The fact that they happily accepted the information and used it in the way the did, knowing it had come from a criminal source, rather does shoot them in the foot when it comes to their integrity.

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 13:33

Although, had Mclaren said "We can't accept this because what you are doing is criminal and this is better handled by the FIA", it would have saved an awful lot of suspicion.

Absolutely.

The fact that they happily accepted the information and used it in the way the did, knowing it had come from a criminal source, rather does shoot them in the foot when it comes to their integrity.

Forgive me if I'm being slow on the uptake, but how exactly did they use it? This is what we have seen no evidence of thus far.

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 13:45

The FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.
So this is a pack of lies then?:

I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.
First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages.
Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents.
In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.
In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence.
It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

8th August 2007, 13:48

Forgive me if I'm being slow on the uptake, but how exactly did they use it? This is what we have seen no evidence of thus far.

They (Mclaren) asked the FIA for clarification on Ferrari's floor.

That's very suspicious, given the events that have unfolded since. Admittedly, they were within their rights to ask for clarification, but the trail of evidence is that they recieved the email in March and then asked for clarification.

Had they asked for clarification when the Ferrari first appeared with it's sprung floor gadget, in February, there would be no evidence.

The very fact that this was not the time-scale of events supports Ferrari's claim.

Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren (well, not regarding the email anyway.......admittedly there would be from the last 10 years).

8th August 2007, 13:51

So this is a pack of lies then?:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Well, it's written by the same Ron Dennis who the FIA didn't believe in Hungary at the weekend, who is the same Ron Dennis who has publically stated an outright lie that the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne.

It certainly doesn't come from an objective and reliable source.

Unless your biased.

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 13:57

...knowing it had come from a criminal source...
Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

8th August 2007, 14:00

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

Tell that to a judge.

It is only whistle-blowing if it is sent to the correct and relevant authorities.

Contacting the opposition with information from your company is not whistle-blowing, it is a criminal act.

You better check the small print of your own employment contract.

I find it incredulous that a knowledgable man doesn't know that.

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 14:01

They (Mclaren) asked the FIA for clarification on Ferrari's floor.

That's very suspicious, given the events that have unfolded since. Admittedly, they were within their rights to ask for clarification, but the trail of evidence is that they recieved the email in March and then asked for clarification.

Had they asked for clarification when the Ferrari first appeared with it's sprung floor gadget, in February, there would be no evidence.

The very fact that this was not the time-scale of events supports Ferrari's claim.

Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren (well, not regarding the email anyway.......admittedly there would be from the last 10 years).

If, then, this is all to do with the floor rather than McLaren gaining some sort of performance, strategy or operational advantage through reading the documents, I can't help but feel that the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion to a degree. It is perfectly feasible that people within F1 already knew about the Ferrari floor; these things don't have a habit of remaining secret for long, even when there aren't leaked documents involved.

SGWilko

8th August 2007, 14:01

I read all that ronspeak complete with spinning and BS! :p :

You didn't seem to be that understanding when Ferrari complained about the verdict, but you understand Ron's attacks and drivel! :rolleyes:

Other excuses?!

So is RD upset because Malacuso wanted a fair hearing for the case, or is he afraid that McLaren will get finally busted for spying on another team?
They've already been found guilty and now they will likely be punished too, and even if it will only be a fine (which will keep everyone happy) it will in fact leave no more doubts about McLaren being at fault in the whole affair!

He could have saved the money and the time of going to the copy shop to make those copies, Max and Todt also read newspapers! ;)

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

Perhaps Ferrari need to take a long hard look at why their employees would behave in such a manner.

Remember, the one guy who has alluded to assisting in getting Ferrari's their bullett proof reliability was 'moved internally', then treated very badly, set up, and sacked. And now, they can't figure out why unreliability is creeping in.

Sheesh, talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Welcome back to the Ferrari team of old........

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 14:04

Well, it's written by the same Ron Dennis who the FIA didn't believe in Hungary at the weekend, who is the same Ron Dennis who has publically stated an outright lie that the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne.

It certainly doesn't come from an objective and reliable source.

Unless your biased.

So you don't believe that the FIA heard any arguments from Ferrari at all during those proceedings, and that that entire description is a fabrication? This is rather different from Dennis saying that the floor was illegal in Melbourne, which is untrue, but hardly a lie on the scale of fabricating an entire description of what happened at an FIA hearing and can be easily proved one way or the other.

Bagwan

8th August 2007, 14:06

IMHO Ferrari's floor is a side-show. Ron Dennis has already said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260):
The issue surrounding Stepney's email regarding Ferrari's floor was looked at by the original hearing.

One reason for there being so much focus on the email (exibit #1!) is that it supposedly shows McLaren illegally obtaining confidential Ferrari information to gain an advantage. The FIA have not accepted Ferrari's argument that this was the case.

This is crucial because without it Ferrari are having great difficulty proving their accusations that McLaren illegally obtained and used the 780-page document (exibit #2!). They appear to have no evidence, other than Coughlan's possession, that suggests McLaren had any knowledge of the document, let alone used it in any way.

Ferrari need the email to be seen as a case of theft of confidential information used to gain an advantage, because, by association, that makes it appear that McLaren (not Coughlan) could have obtained and used the document to do the same.

The issue at hand in this end of the case against McLaren , is whether the "whistle-blower" moniker is appropriate .
Ron's case hinges on his convincing the FIA that Ferrari were , indeed , illegal .
If he is correct about this , then Ferrari should be wiped from the records in the Oz gp .
But , reports were , that the floors were changed up and down the pit lane .
Would all those moving floors have to removed from the results ?

As you said earlier , it affected everyone . Mind you , I think that that is more true in the sense that everyone now had to fly with the same rules . McLaren didn't have to change , as they supposedly were asking if they could , not protesting .

Dennis knew the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne , and didn't protest the results , even though he lost points to the reds ?
That could have been the double burn , and an opportunity that I can't believe Ron would miss .

Ron is trying desperately to attach the word "illegal" to Ferrari in Oz , when he knows full well they were not .
Ron should be careful he doesn't say much more , as it will only point publicly to the stewards and/or the FIA getting it wrong , when they didn't .

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 14:09

The issue at hand in this end of the case against McLaren , is whether the "whistle-blower" moniker is appropriate .
Ron's case hinges on his convincing the FIA that Ferrari were , indeed , illegal .

I don't think it does. It hinges rather more on whether Ferrari can prove that McLaren actually made use of those documents. The legality of the Ferraris at the time of the Australian GP should not be in question.

8th August 2007, 14:12

So you don't believe that the FIA heard any arguments from Ferrari at all during those proceedings, and that that entire description is a fabrication? This is rather different from Dennis saying that the floor was illegal in Melbourne, which is untrue, but hardly a lie on the scale of fabricating an entire description of what happened at an FIA hearing and can be easily proved one way or the other.

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 14:21

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.
What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

Bagwan

8th August 2007, 14:23

I don't think it does. It hinges rather more on whether Ferrari can prove that McLaren actually made use of those documents. The legality of the Ferraris at the time of the Australian GP should not be in question.

You missed the words "in this end" in my post .

Ron is painting the reds black before the case is heard .

If Ron is shown to have been using information from Stepney to impede the reds and others , rather than being a victim of an illegal car , it shows he will use such an advantage .
It also shows directly how they could have used info in a 780 page document without it showing up on thier car .

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 14:29

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.

It's quite a simple question. Do you seriously believe that the account of the FIA hearing is all a lie?

8th August 2007, 14:30

If, then, this is all to do with the floor rather than McLaren gaining some sort of performance, strategy or operational advantage through reading the documents, I can't help but feel that the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion to a degree.

It's not all to do with floor. The documents are potentially a much bigger issue. The floor saga is the key to everything else.

The floor is important in relation to the documents as it could, or could not be, the 'smoking gun' in all of this.

With the floor, Ferrari will, in all probability, be trying to argue that Mclaren acted on information that was illegally obtained as it was not whistle-blowing as defined by law.

If they can prove that, then the appeal hearing is much more likely to believe that Mclaren also used the documents.

That's why the floor is the key....but also why it's only the tip of the iceberg.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the iceberg melts.

Bagwan

8th August 2007, 14:31

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

Ferrari made a submission , it's true , but it is pretty easy debating with a piece of paper .

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 14:34

Ferrari made a submission , it's true , but it is pretty easy debating with a piece of paper .

They were represented by lawyers, which is rather different.

I don't know whether they could have represented themselves at the hearing — someone else may be aware of this — but presumably they felt their lawyers capable of the task.

8th August 2007, 14:37

It's quite a simple question. Do you seriously believe that the account of the FIA hearing is all a lie?

A 100% lie? Probably not. There was definitely a hearing.

But I don't believe it's 100% accurate, either.

I believe it is the statement of a man who has been proven to lie before and also the statement of a man who has every reason to put across a version of events to suit his own agenda.

Which is why I, and I would imagine so to would any half-decent lawyer, have issues with it being proported as an undeniably factual statement.

8th August 2007, 14:46

They were represented by lawyers, which is rather different.

I don't know whether they could have represented themselves at the hearing — someone else may be aware of this — but presumably they felt their lawyers capable of the task.

It all depends on what the lawyers brief was and what the rules of the hearing would allow them to do.

The lawyers could simply have been present to make sure that the hearing was run within the prescribed remit.

There are occasions, such as at inquests, where lawyers cannot ask questions. Only the judges have that power.

With the new appeal being confirmed by the FIA as allowing Ferrari to state their case, then the lawyers will have more of a direct impact.

8th August 2007, 14:50

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

The original hearing had Coughlan's affadavit, given to the FIA by Ferrari.

That is not the same as being allowed to ask direct questions to the accused.

The original hearing was simply concerned with the charge facing Mclaren and was not concerned with legal arguments from Ferrari, hence why we now have a new appeal hearing.

May I suggest that, having read the small print in your employment contract, you might find it useful to proceed to a library and read a few books on basic law?

You might find it extremely enlightening.

ArrowsFA1

8th August 2007, 15:02

It is only whistle-blowing if it is sent to the correct and relevant authorities.

Contacting the opposition with information from your company is not whistle-blowing, it is a criminal act.

You better check the small print of your own employment contract.

I find it incredulous that a knowledgable man doesn't know that.
Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

Flat.tyres

8th August 2007, 16:12

Firstly, the Mclaren 4th pedal situation is not immaterial. It is cut from the same cloth as the Ferrari floor.

Both were an attempt to circumnavigate the regulations. One (Mclaren) fell foul of an existing rule, whereas the Ferrari floor needed an amendment to the regulations for it to be deemed illegal.

The Ferrari floor, like the Renault Mass-damper last year, passed the FIA prescribed test procedure at Melbourne, much in the same way that the Michelin tyres passed the test procedure in Hungary in 2003.

By the time of Malaysia, when the regulations and the prescribed testing procedure had been revised, it would have been illegal.........but it was no longer on the car.

As has been said before, if you are within the regulations, you are not committing an act of illegality.

If you believe that Ferrari were illegal in Melbourne, then by the same logic you have to accuse Renault of illegality in 2006 and all Michelin runners, including the saintly Mclarens, of being illegal pre-Italian GP in 2003.

But I don't expect for one minute your blinkers could allow your own logic to bring about the downfall of your argument.

And, just for the record, I don't believe that Renault were illegal nor that the Michelin runners in 2003 were illegal. They were smart, that's all.

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

BDunnell

8th August 2007, 16:43

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

The other similar case involved Jordan's anti-stall system in 1999. In that instance, Jordan asked the FIA for clarification and it was ruled illegal. Nowadays, this would cause an enormous stink, calls for their points to be revoked, and so on ad nauseam.

Flat.tyres

8th August 2007, 17:39

speaking of appeals, McLaren have pressed ahead with the appeal for constructors points

tinchote

8th August 2007, 18:52

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

That's a little more balanced :up: but still not quite. The rules at the time (and still today) say that the steering of the car can only be done with the steering wheel. So what McLaren was doing was openly illegal.

McLaren's third pedal was in violation of this rule:

11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force
exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all
times.

On the other hand, there is no description of the floor in the regulations: you won't find a statement like "the floor has to be flat". All the bodywork regulations are given in terms of measurements. If your car satisfies the measurements, it is legal. Just to show you how RD lies.

wmcot

9th August 2007, 08:37

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

For the last time (hopefully) on this thread - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY FOR THE DEFINITIONS OF WHISTLEBLOWER VS. SPY!

A whistleblower reports wrongdoing to the proper legal authorities.

A spy gives confidential information to competitors.

Simple enough?

If Stepney was a "whistleblower" he would have gone to the FIA or the stewards at a GP. Since he emailed his technical information to McLaren, he is a spy.

Not that hard to see the difference unless RD prescribed your eyeglasses!

wmcot

9th August 2007, 08:42

One more clarification of Ferrari's "illegal flexible floor":

All F1 floor flex - they would snap into bits if they didn't (same goes for airplane wings.)

At Melbourne, the flex of Ferrari's floor was measured according to the rules at the time and was found to be within the acceptable range.

After Melbourne, through a "subtle hint" from McLaren (via Stepney) the measurement of a floor's flexibility was changed. ALL cars complied with this new measurement by Malaysia.

Ferrari would have cheated if their floor at Malaysia (and after) did not meet the new standards.

Am I being too simple?

wmcot

9th August 2007, 08:44

Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

No, but if I find the need to do so, I know the proper authorities to go to!!!

wmcot

9th August 2007, 08:49

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

About time somebody told them!!! There have been so many rulings or non-rulings made by the FIA (including for or against Ferrari) that they don't even seem to have a shred of common sense in the whole organization. As far as racing is concerned, the FIA seem more interested in maintaining public image and the flow of money into Bernie's pockets than the good of racing.

ArrowsFA1

9th August 2007, 10:45

No, but if I find the need to do so, I know the proper authorities to go to!!!
Thank you.

Perhaps if you had, you, and everyone who cuts & pastes a dictionary definition, would realise that whistleblowing is not an easy, simple or clear-cut process. Here it is being seen purely in the context of Stepneygate and is being used as a stick to beat Ron Dennis with.

Take a step back and see whistleblowing for what it is, which is a process that allows employees to raise an issue, or make a complaint, about their employer secure in the knowledge that they are doing so confidentially and without fear of reprisals.

This often repeated phrase - “the proper authorities” – is misleading. “The proper authorities” are those who the whistleblower feels comfortable going to, and who will maintain their confidentiality and deal with their issue effectively.

A good employer will have an internal whistleblowing policy and procedures, and therefore the employer themselves are often the proper authority. An employee should feel able to raise a complaint/concern with their employer confident that their confidentiality will be maintained, and that there will not be reprisals for doing so.

Once a whistleblower has raised an issue with their employer under cover of the whistleblower policy their confidentiality is maintained throughout, and after, any investigation of the issue by the employer. This should be the case regardless of the outcome.

Now, in the context of Stepneygate, if we assume what Stepney is alleged to have done is whistleblowing then we also have to assume he felt unable to raise the issue internally. Given that the concern was that Ferrari’s floor had been designed to get around the existing rules, it hardly seems worth Stepney telling his bosses something they already knew, even if Ferrari do have a whistleblowing policy!

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

Passing details of Ferrari’s floor to an old friend at McLaren would be the best way for Stepney to raise the question of illegality without being directly involved in the following process. Teams raise questions of legality with the FIA on a frequent basis. Having seen the cars in Melbourne who would question why McLaren were raising the issue (who did at the time?), and who could possibly establish any connection with Stepney (who did at the time?)?

Therefore (allegedly!) Stepney achieved the aims of a whistleblower - confidentiality intact and no reprisals from Ferrari (at the time!).

9th August 2007, 11:59

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 12:35

Are you for real?

It is the logical process is it not.

If Nigel went to the FIA, he would have been hung, drawn and quartered.

By informing McLaren, WHO DID NOT USE THIS TO BENEFIT THEIR CAR, but instead, subtly asked the FIA for clarification, they avoided a big protest, got the matter resolved and it should have been the end of the matter.

Lets not forget it was Ron that followed the correct process in all of this and if you want to be pedantic, a Ferrari employee that did not.

the big problem arises because Mike and Nigel then decide to screw over their employers in the future.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 12:39

That's a little more balanced :up: but still not quite. The rules at the time (and still today) say that the steering of the car can only be done with the steering wheel. So what McLaren was doing was openly illegal.

McLaren's third pedal was in violation of this rule:

On the other hand, there is no description of the floor in the regulations: you won't find a statement like "the floor has to be flat". All the bodywork regulations are given in terms of measurements. If your car satisfies the measurements, it is legal. Just to show you how RD lies.

sorry mate but I dont know how to access previous versions of the rules from so far back. I only know how to get the up to date ones where ammendments have been made.

One little thing confused me though?

11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force
exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all
times.

how does this account for the drivers being able to independantly change the bias from left, to right, to front, to rear many times during a lap. :confused:

9th August 2007, 13:20

It is the logical process is it not.

If Nigel went to the FIA, he would have been hung, drawn and quartered.

By informing McLaren, WHO DID NOT USE THIS TO BENEFIT THEIR CAR, but instead, subtly asked the FIA for clarification, they avoided a big protest, got the matter resolved and it should have been the end of the matter.

Lets not forget it was Ron that followed the correct process in all of this and if you want to be pedantic, a Ferrari employee that did not.

the big problem arises because Mike and Nigel then decide to screw over their employers in the future.

I truly hope you don't ever plan to be in a court-room yourself at anytime, because your legal knowledge would see you serve a 20 year stretch for a parking ticket.

Informing Mclaren because the 'whistle-blower' was scared of going to the FIA does not make it the right way to go about things.

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

By receiving informations on a competitors designs through an illegitimate channel, Mclaren are also guilty of breaking the same rules.

Hence, in case it escaped your knowledge, why the original FIA hearing found Mclaren of being guilty.

BDunnell

9th August 2007, 13:22

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

Passing details of Ferrari’s floor to an old friend at McLaren would be the best way for Stepney to raise the question of illegality without being directly involved in the following process.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one. He should have gone to the FIA. At some point, Stepney would have had to have been directly involved in the process, like it or not, for his evidence would have had to have been presented. I simply can't see how his subsequent actions tally with the idea of him keeping his job at Ferrari without them finding out.

This, of course, brings us on to the part of this that everyone is forgetting about — the alleged 'white powder' and what Stepney sees as the Ferrari smear against him. With this being the subject of a criminal investigation in Italy, I don't fancy his chances of a fair hearing.

BDunnell

9th August 2007, 13:24

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

By the time it got to him, wasn't it already too late, though? Hadn't the information already been received by the company, in the form of Coughlan?

9th August 2007, 13:25

It is the logical process is it not.

Logic does not come into it as applying logic is not a defence for commiting a criminal act.

It may seem to you that the law is therefore an 'ass', but it is still the law.

9th August 2007, 13:31

By the time it got to him, wasn't it already too late, though? Hadn't the information already been received by the company, in the form of Coughlan?

Yes, which is why I do not believe Ron to be guilty of a deliberate attempt to gain information regarding Ferrari's designs.

But even if he had no intention of doing that, the situation is that Mclaren should have alerted both Ferrari and the FIA to the situation as soon as it arose.

The welfare of the criminal should not be used as an excuse not to report a criminal act.

BDunnell

9th August 2007, 13:37

Perhaps if you had, you, and everyone who cuts & pastes a dictionary definition, would realise that whistleblowing is not an easy, simple or clear-cut process. Here it is being seen purely in the context of Stepneygate and is being used as a stick to beat Ron Dennis with.

I agree with you on this, but it still seems like an odd way of going about it in a sport in which there is a governing body which can take responsibility for dealing with such cases. In many other forms of work, it may be less clear-cut as to whom the whistleblower takes their grievance or information, but in F1, the procedure seems a bit more obvious.

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 13:41

I truly hope you don't ever plan to be in a court-room yourself at anytime, because your legal knowledge would see you serve a 20 year stretch for a parking ticket.

Informing Mclaren because the 'whistle-blower' was scared of going to the FIA does not make it the right way to go about things.

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

By receiving informations on a competitors designs through an illegitimate channel, Mclaren are also guilty of breaking the same rules.

Hence, in case it escaped your knowledge, why the original FIA hearing found Mclaren of being guilty.

Tamburello

I don't want to keep protracting this out because it seems that you have a big problem with someone at Ferrari spilling the beans about a development that was contrary to the spirit of the rules but managed to get around the way it was tested. If the floor was perfectly legal and not an issue, would the FIA have changed the way it was tested to make it illegal? Of course not so lets not be coy about this. They were being naughty and got caught.

now, you can hate Stepney for informaing on them but they were in the wrong. perhaps not to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law and in FIA law, they amount to pretty much the same thing.

now, you like professing chapter and verse of law as many clever people do to avoid the basic facts and intention of a situation. not for the first time has a criminal got off because of a clever lawer and their interpretation of the Law ;)

so, the basic facts are that Ferrari were trying to bypass a regulation, Stepney informed McLaren who then informed the FIA keeping the whistle-blowers identity secret. the FIA agreed that Ferrari were trying to circumvent a testing procedure with an illegal floor and tightened up the testing process to ensure the floor was shown up as illegal from there on forcing Ferrari to comply with the regulations by changing the floor.

face it, your just p*ssed that they were caught out by one of their dissafected employees blowing their secret and are trying to justify it by some peverse legal arguement that he didn't go through the correct channels :laugh:

now, I'm not sure that this is what they were actually found guilty of but I suspect it wasn't from what Ive been told. I think they were found guilty because one of their employees had Ferrari IP in his possession that had been stolen by a Ferrari employee. The reason their was no sanction against McLaren was that the FIA accepted that the Ferrari and McLaren employee in question were acting on their own volition and not only were McLaren in no way benefitting from this document but were being screwed as much as Ferrari. after all, if mike was going to jump ship with Nigel, isn't it fair to say he proberly had a fair amount of McLaren IP as well ;)

janneppi

9th August 2007, 13:45

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?

Perhaps Stepney thought that it would have more merit coming publicly from another team, which would force FIA to react, who knows, he might have tried to get the information to FIA before but was ignored or told not to rock he boat?

9th August 2007, 13:53

face it, your just p*ssed that they were caught out by one of their dissafected employees blowing their secret and are trying to justify it by some peverse legal arguement that he didn't go through the correct channels :laugh:

It's not a perverse legal argument, it's the law.

The fact that you cannot understand that breaking the law is not a defence says more about your agenda than it says about my emotional state.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 13:53

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

sorry to point out the bleeding obvious but as someone as learned as yourself in chapter and verse of the law, should we be discussing Intellectual Copyright or IP? ive never heard of a legal definition for Intellectual Copyright in the first instance and if you mean copyright, then it has a usual definition in Literature, arts etc. of course, Intellectual Property can consist of copyrighted works but it also entails non copyrighted documentation, process, thoughts, design etc that originate from a person or entity such as Ferrari.

I think even a learned gentlemen such as yourself would struggle to define Intellectual Copyright, let alone prove where its been transgressed.

Not getting picky or anything but your the one with Legal Definitions spouting from your backside :D

9th August 2007, 13:56

now, you like professing chapter and verse of law as many clever people do to avoid the basic facts and intention of a situation.

Nope, I'm pointing out to you the flaws in your argument, which is what any clever lawyer would do.

Or half-clever, in this case.

BDunnell

9th August 2007, 13:57

Perhaps Stepney thought that it would have more merit coming publicly from another team, which would force FIA to react...

I doubt that, because he would surely have known that doing it 'publicly' would not be possible, and maybe lead to something like this happening.

...who knows, he might have tried to get the information to FIA before but was ignored or told not to rock he boat?

This was exactly what had crossed my mind.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 14:00

It's not a perverse legal argument, it's the law.

The fact that you cannot understand that breaking the law is not a defence says more about your agenda than it says about my emotional state.

what agenda? :laugh:

your trying to twist and turn with legal arguements and definitions to discredit the whole chain of events because of one minute part in law and then are accusing me of having an agenda.

OK fella, tell me your version of the chain of events and being reasonable about it, where the fault lays. what did Dennis do that was morally wrong once he was made aware of the email from Stepney? did he, or did he not, go to the correct authorities and make them aware of the illegal floor once he had confirmed it was being used in Aus?

9th August 2007, 14:01

I think even a learned gentlemen such as yourself would struggle to define Intellectual Copyright, let alone prove where its been transgressed.

Intellectual copyright is not the same as intellectual property, besides which, details of a design are immediately owned by the company responsible for designing them.

Just a quick search on Google would inform you, but since I'm such a decent chap, here's one.....

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/n_ap/400_403.htm

Bagwan

9th August 2007, 14:02

As I understand it , Stepney was rather disaffected with Ferrari , but he now gets the benefit of the term "whistle-blower" .

A "whistle-blower" implies that his motive for his action was fairness and equity , in wanting to alert the authorities that the Ferrari bending the rules .

Since we know he was looking to other teams for employment , can the term be applied to Mr. Stepney at all , or was he just trying to screw with them before he left ? Was he looking to get fired , so he could leave ?
We know that the wing separator was brought into question as well , but given the ok .
Had the flex-floor been ok'ed as well , would there be any question as to Ferrari being a victim here ?

ArrowsFA1

9th August 2007, 14:03

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?

A "whistle-blower" implies that his motive for his action was fairness and equity , in wanting to alert the authorities that the Ferrari bending the rules .

Since we know he was looking to other teams for employment , can the term be applied to Mr. Stepney at all , or was he just trying to screw with them before he left ? Was he looking to get fired , so he could leave ?
I think there are many questions like this relating to Stepney's situation at Ferrari that are yet to be answered, but that have a bearing on everything that is going on.

9th August 2007, 14:06

OK fella, tell me your version of the chain of events and being reasonable about it, where the fault lays. what did Dennis do that was morally wrong once he was made aware of the email from Stepney? did he, or did he not, go to the correct authorities and make them aware of the illegal floor once he had confirmed it was being used in Aus?

Re-read my posts.

9th August 2007, 14:10

but they were in the wrong. perhaps not to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law and in FIA law, they amount to pretty much the same thing.

No it doesn't, hence the reason why no disqualification was imposed on Ferrari in Melbourne.

9th August 2007, 14:13

I think even a learned gentlemen such as yourself would struggle to define Intellectual Copyright, let alone prove where its been transgressed.

Not getting picky or anything but your the one with Legal Definitions spouting from your backside :D

Please also read this.......

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ipr/IntellectualProperty.htm#Primer

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 14:17

Intellectual copyright is not the same as intellectual property, besides which, details of a design are immediately owned by the company responsible for designing them.

Just a quick search on Google would inform you, but since I'm such a decent chap, here's one.....

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/n_ap/400_403.htm

I say it again. There is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright

your basing your arguement on something that has no legal definition or basis in Law

you quote some article on New Zealand law to back up your arguement that does nothing of the such.

Now, sorry to keep pointing this out but you are getting a bit anal about this old boy. as you say, I know very little about the law but what I do know is that you cant just make up legal terms to suit your arguement.

Intellectual Copyright doesn't exist as a term or a legal president. Copyright does but it is not strictly relevant to your arguement as it's pretty unlikely that the information would be subject to copyright anyway unless it was due for publication. were Ferrari planning on publishing it?

However, it was Intellectual Property, which is a valid, legal and recognised term. may I suggest you use that in future :p :

9th August 2007, 14:22

However, it was Intellectual Property, which is a valid, legal and recognised term. may I suggest you use that in future :p :

Certainly.

Not sure how that helps your argument though.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 14:23

Please also read this.......

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ipr/IntellectualProperty.htm#Primer

may I suggest you do the same. not just the first few lines but a little further as to what is covered.

it blows you out of the water. there is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright but Copyright does not sufficiently cover the information whereas it says that copyright makes up an important componant of IP.

your swimming upstream fella and theres no mating ground at the top :D

9th August 2007, 14:26

may I suggest you do the same. not just the first few lines but a little further as to what is covered.

it blows you out of the water. there is no such thing as Intellectual Copyright but Copyright does not sufficiently cover the information whereas it says that copyright makes up an important componant of IP.

your swimming upstream fella and theres no mating ground at the top :D

I think you'll find a court would see that very differently, especially the bit relating to........

The principal Intellectual Property Rights are as follows:

* Design Rights
* The law of Confidential information

tinchote

9th August 2007, 16:30

sorry mate but I dont know how to access previous versions of the rules from so far back. I only know how to get the up to date ones where ammendments have been made.

One little thing confused me though?

how does this account for the drivers being able to independantly change the bias from left, to right, to front, to rear many times during a lap. :confused:

If I understand correctly, the cars have two brake systems, one for the front and one for the back (too lazy to check again the regulations).

As for the right/left bias, as far as I can tell that has always being illegal in F1. Besides, it would make braking without spinning impossible.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 17:16

Certainly.

Not sure how that helps your argument though.

it doesn't help my arguement at all. I was just using common sense but you wanted to get wrapped up in legal definitions that dont exist.

Common sense prevails ;)

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 17:26

If I understand correctly, the cars have two brake systems, one for the front and one for the back (too lazy to check again the regulations).

As for the right/left bias, as far as I can tell that has always being illegal in F1. Besides, it would make braking without spinning impossible.

my knowledge is a couple of years out of date now but I thought individual brake bias was controlable from the wheel during the race. it can definatly control front / rear but I'm not sure about L/R so retract that claim unless anyone knows different.

9th August 2007, 18:20

it doesn't help my arguement at all. I was just using common sense but you wanted to get wrapped up in legal definitions that dont exist.

Common sense prevails ;)

Except that there are legal defintions that do exist and you still haven't explained why the Principal Intellectual Property Rights of Design Rights and the Laws of Confidential Information do not apply to your beloved Mclaren.

If that is your definition of prevailing in an argument, then no wonder your knowledge of the law is so sketchy.

Flat.tyres

9th August 2007, 18:26

Except that there are legal defintions that do exist and you still haven't explained why the Principal Intellectual Property Rights of Design Rights and the Laws of Confidential Information do not apply to your beloved Mclaren.

If that is your definition of prevailing in an argument, then no wonder your knowledge of the law is so sketchy.

I know, I know. me and the FIA unamimously agree that McLaren are guilty on a technicality but should not be punished as the events were outside their control and prejudicial to their best interest but your superior legal accumen dispells all of this.

bravo, sir, bravo. your right, the rest of us are mere annoyances irritating the expanse of your superior legal intellect.

Happy now?

either that or your wrong but cant admit it :D

Bagwan

9th August 2007, 20:11

I know, I know. me and the FIA unamimously agree that McLaren are guilty on a technicality but should not be punished as the events were outside their control and prejudicial to their best interest but your superior legal accumen dispells all of this.

bravo, sir, bravo. your right, the rest of us are mere annoyances irritating the expanse of your superior legal intellect.

Happy now?

either that or your wrong but cant admit it :D

And , this kids , is the way to end , not win , a debate .
Please don't try this at home .

wmcot

10th August 2007, 08:31

This often repeated phrase - “the proper authorities” – is misleading. “The proper authorities” are those who the whistleblower feels comfortable going to, and who will maintain their confidentiality and deal with their issue effectively.

Like drinking buddies at the local pub? Are those the "proper authorities" because I feel comfortable with them? The proper authorities are those who would have a formal jurisdiction over the company - most cases would be the legal system, a trade union, or a government agency presiding over businesses - NEVER a direct competitor! If I work for McDonald's and I discover they are adding fillers to their beef to save money, should I go to Burger King?

Now, in the context of Stepneygate, if we assume what Stepney is alleged to have done is whistleblowing then we also have to assume he felt unable to raise the issue internally. Given that the concern was that Ferrari’s floor had been designed to get around the existing rules, it hardly seems worth Stepney telling his bosses something they already knew, even if Ferrari do have a whistleblowing policy!

So Stepney felt guilty that Ferrari were using the flex-floor and had to tell someone? I rather think he was trying to get back at them for not releasing him last year.

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

If he was truly being a "whistleblower" and had gone to the FIA, he would have been legally protected even if his name was revealed. Unless Italy has some strange laws, Ferrari could not have done anything to Stepney if he had chosen this proper route, without fear of serious legal repercussions.

Basically, you're saying that Stepney "felt guilty" about the floor and was "afraid" to tell anyone at Ferrari or the FIA so he went to his good friend, Coughlan, (who just happened to work for a direct competitor) for "clearing his conscience."

That's a good one! I'm not even sure Stepney's lawyers could twist the events around that perversely!!! :)

My stance is still Stepney = Spy

ArrowsFA1

10th August 2007, 09:14

Basically, you're saying that Stepney "felt guilty" about the floor...
Not quite. I was merely providing a possible scenario of the way things went in the context of whistelblowing.

I don't know what Stepney felt, or what his motivations were. Bear in mind that he has denied (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285)sending the email!

My stance is still Stepney = Spy
As I said earlier I think there are many questions relating to Stepney's situation at Ferrari that are yet to be answered which are central to this whole situation.

wmcot

10th August 2007, 22:04

Bear in mind that he has denied (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285)sending the email!

That shouldn't be too difficult to prove, one way or the other.

11th August 2007, 10:44

I don't know what Stepney felt, or what his motivations were. Bear in mind that he has denied (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61285)sending the email!

Arrows, Ron Dennis has confirmed he did.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32299

Atleast one of the two, Ron or Stepney, is telling porkies.

ArrowsFA1

12th August 2007, 09:54

Arrows, Ron Dennis has confirmed he did...Atleast one of the two, Ron or Stepney, is telling porkies.
Perhaps, although what if it came from Stepney's Ferrari email address, but wasn't sent by Stepney? :crazy: :p : Both of them would be telling the truth in that case ;)

wmcot

13th August 2007, 07:13

Perhaps, although what if it came from Stepney's Ferrari email address, but wasn't sent by Stepney? :crazy: :p : Both of them would be telling the truth in that case ;)

What if the "flex-floor" virus hit Stepney's computer and it automatically generated emails to everyone on his contact list and then onto their contact lists until it finally ended up in the hands of McLaren.

That could happen, too, but it's not likely. Sometimes, the simplest answer is the truth whether we want to believe it or not...

ioan

13th August 2007, 18:46

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

And would Ferrari be wrong?
Are the FIA doing their job properly?
Can you say that "found guilty but not punished" is a properly done job?

ioan

13th August 2007, 18:51

If Nigel went to the FIA, he would have been hung, drawn and quartered.

So you believe that the FIA whom found McLaren guilty but didn't punish them for espionage wouldn't have done justice to Mr. Stepney? What are you :s mokin: ?

wmcot

14th August 2007, 07:05

it doesn't help my arguement at all. I was just using common sense but you wanted to get wrapped up in legal definitions that dont exist.

Common sense prevails ;)

Actually it seems that you're nit-picking about grammar when anyone with common sense knows what the poster is referring to rather than trying to defend your incorrect argument as to what differentiates whistleblowing and spying.

I suggest you address the matter at hand rather than trying to a personal attack on anyone with an opinion differing from yours.

wmcot

14th August 2007, 07:10

It is the logical process is it not...
Lets not forget it was Ron that followed the correct process in all of this and if you want to be pedantic, a Ferrari employee that did not.

So your first sentence states that it was the "logical" process, but your second admits that it was not the "correct" process? Very good, you contradicted yourself in one single post.

ArrowsFA1

14th August 2007, 08:49

wmcot, I believe the "logical process" Flat.tyres refers to is the one I speculated on earlier (post #191) regarding the possible actions of the "whistleblower", a part of which tamburello took exception to.

Remember, the theft of Ferrari's IP was carried out by a Ferrari employee, not McLaren. Also remember there are two distinct pieces of IP - the email highlighting the flexi-floor, then the 780-page document.

In the case of the email, we can argue about the correct courses of action that could have been taken once the contents were known by McLaren, but they are not responsible for the theft.

Once they knew of the contents of the email what were they to do? In light of the fact that it appeared Ferrari had a floor designed to get around the rules should they simply have returned the email to Ferrari and done nothing? Should they have forwarded the email to the FIA explaining how it had come into their possession? Or should they have raised the question with the FIA in the way they did, which did not (initially) break the confidence of the whistleblower?

What difference would taking one of the first two options have made to the outcome? Either way Ferrari were running a floor that was designed to get around the regulations and McLaren knew the contents whatever they did.

What exactly were McLaren guilty of with regard to the email?

ioan

14th August 2007, 09:38

What exactly were McLaren guilty of with regard to the email?

Accepting and using confidential information about another team?!

ArrowsFA1

14th August 2007, 09:55

Accepting and using confidential information about another team?!
Ok. Yes the information was accepted (but not sought) and used but would you expect any team to ignore such information? The email suggested that a team had designed part of their car to get around the rules. Is that acceptable?

Having been in receipt of the email, would any team have read it, ignored the contents, returned it to the sender or owner, and done nothing?

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 10:40

Accepting and using confidential information about another team?!

on the evidence at the moment, the only confidential information they used about Ferrari was an email from (allegedly) Nigel Stepney regarding an illegal (although Ferrari fans claim it wasnt illegal at the time because it bypassed the tests in place to check for this illegality) floor.

McLaren asked the FIA for clarification on this type of floor and the FIA rightly concluded that it was illigal and tighten up their testing procedures so that it reflected this.

thats what upsets Ferrari and their fans. had McLaren used the information in the email to develop their own floor, they would have been guilty as Ferrari and guilty of espionage but they didnt.

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 11:01

Actually it seems that you're nit-picking about grammar when anyone with common sense knows what the poster is referring to rather than trying to defend your incorrect argument as to what differentiates whistleblowing and spying.

I suggest you address the matter at hand rather than trying to a personal attack on anyone with an opinion differing from yours.

:laugh: Im the last person to complain about grammer. Mine is terrible :laugh:

I was trying to look at it from the perspective as a whole and Tamburello was quoting chapter and verse about legal arguements and definitions to the extent or insinuating we would be laughed out of court if we applied the common sense we were trying to argue.

I merely pointed out that the Legal definitions he was using were not actually legal because they were made up.

as for a personal attack :confused: I am a little unclear about this one. I believe that I agreed that correcting him didnt strenghten my case whatsoever. I also will accept with people with a different opinion but reserve the right to ask the question with what McLaren actually did wrong in this situation.

as Arrows said, what else could they have realistically done?

ioan

14th August 2007, 11:09

Ok. Yes the information was accepted (but not sought) and used but would you expect any team to ignore such information? The email suggested that a team had designed part of their car to get around the rules. Is that acceptable?

Having been in receipt of the email, would any team have read it, ignored the contents, returned it to the sender or owner, and done nothing?

They should have said "Thank you but we advise you to go straight to Max with this info".

How easy it would have been. ;)

ioan

14th August 2007, 11:11

on the evidence at the moment, the only confidential information they used about Ferrari was an email from (allegedly) Nigel Stepney regarding an illegal (although Ferrari fans claim it wasnt illegal at the time because it bypassed the tests in place to check for this illegality) floor.

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

SteveA

14th August 2007, 11:13

:laugh: Im the last person to complain about grammer. Mine is terrible :laugh:

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

ArrowsFA1

14th August 2007, 11:25

They should have said "Thank you but we advise you to go straight to Max with this info".
With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

Either way McLaren did approach the FIA with the information, and action was taken.

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:
The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 12:26

The floor was not illegal. Come back when you get this point right, it's really getting boring to explain it to you again and again (and I see that others tried to explain it to you extensively for some time too) :rolleyes:

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?

1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 12:28

Also your spelling, judging by that sentence! ;)

no complaints from me on that one either fella :laugh:

ioan

14th August 2007, 13:22

you keep saying it and I keep failing to understand it.

what we are talking about it a device mounted on springs which moves under loading to give a beneficial aerodynamic impact. Right or Wrong?

then answer the following regulations, particulaly the last one and answer me

1. How did the Ferrari conform with these regulations?

2. Why did they not get penalised?

1.4 Bodywork:
All entirely sprung parts of the car in contact with the external air
stream, except cameras and the parts definitely associated with the
mechanical functioning of the engine, transmission and running gear.
Airboxes, radiators and engine exhausts are considered to be part of
the bodywork.

2.4 Compliance with the regulations:
Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at
all times during an Event.
Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is
unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One
Technical Department.

3.12.7 No bodywork more than 150mm from the car centre line,
which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear
wheel centre line and a point 330mm forward of it may be more than
125mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces
in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form
one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car.
Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid,
hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the
body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

3.15 Aerodynamic influence:
With the exception of the cover described in Article 6.5.2 (when used
in the pit lane) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific
part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance:
- Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly
secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- Must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap
between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited
under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the
bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may
under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

now, again I say it, the sprung bodywork, that moved under loading to increase the performance of the Ferrari, was ILLEGAL.

Ive proved where I think it is so perhaps you can prove where it isnt?

All the FIA have done is change the tests to pick up on this cheating.

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality. :laugh:
So if you still don't get it right why do you reply? :rolleyes:

ioan

14th August 2007, 13:28

With the benefit of hindsight, given all the circumstantial accusations made in the light of the email being sent, McLaren might agree. But, whether they advised the sender of the email to do what you suggest, or did what they did, makes little or no difference.

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?
Ron took the wrong decision at that moment, they shouldn't have accepted the info coming from Stepney. But they did it! Because they wanted to win at all costs! Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole! :p :

BTW what's your opinion about Ron lying to the stewards and bringing the sport into disrepute?

ArrowsFA1

14th August 2007, 13:43

The text you posted with bold letter contradicts your claim of illegality.
Could you explain exactly how it contradicts the claim of illegality?

Benefit of hindsight?! You mean that if Ferrari wouldn't have found out than it would have been all rosy and correct?
No, that's not what I meant.

Who says they didn't persuade Stepney to send them the 780 pages afterwards? Maybe they blackmailed him using his previous email about the Ferrari floor?
That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to!

You contradict yourself there, if there was a loophole in the regs than the floor could not be illegal before they chose to close the loophole!
A loophole is a means or opportunity of evading a rule. Ferrari took the opportunity to evade the intention of the existing rule. That's why I say it is debateable whether Ferrari's floor was illegal or not. Having received information about the floor the FIA acted to close the loophole.

Bagwan

14th August 2007, 13:59

The legality or otherwise of the floor is debateable. What is not in question is the fact that, having looked at the floor, the FIA took action to close a loophole in the regulations which affected all teams.

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .

What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?

This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

ArrowsFA1

14th August 2007, 14:07

...to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change.
This (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/58471) is what I based my "affected all teams" comment on:

The tougher movable floor tests introduced by the FIA for the Spanish Grand Prix will force every team to make changes to their designs...

Flat.tyres

14th August 2007, 14:15

The device was not illegal in Melbourne , but became so before the second race .
There is no debate about this . Had they been illegal in Oz , Ferrari and others would have been sanctioned .

And , to state that it "affected all teams" implies that perhaps McLaren had to change as well . As I understand it , McLaren did not have to change .

What would have happened if Coughlan had received the info from Stepney and said "Oh , yeah , we use one of those , too." ?
I would suggest that they would have kept quiet .

But , it leads me to wonder how Nigel knew that McLaren weren't , when apparently others in the pit lane were .
Did Newey at the bulls have one on his car(s) ?

This move to ask for clarification messed with more than just Ferrari .

Bagwan

your generally quite objective.

would you say that its possible that the Ferrari (and others) floor was illegal but that it wasnt showing up in the tests.

McLaren asked for clarification subsequent and the loophole (testing process) was changed but for the good of the sport, no retrospective action was taken? surely widespread sanctions up and down the pitlane would be destructive, wouldn't it?

not to McLaren of course as if they had of complained rather than request clarification, the FIA would have been forced to view this differently.

which begs the question of why Ron took the softly, softly approach rather than go for the jugular. He could have done either and still not dropped Stepney in it.

what do you think?