FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

2nd August 2007, 20:48
markabilly

Usuually the victim has already been hurt enuff by the criminal

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

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
2nd August 2007, 20:58
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by markabilly

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!
2nd August 2007, 21:05
Ian McC

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

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.
2nd August 2007, 21:09
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

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.
2nd August 2007, 21:16
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian McC

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.
2nd August 2007, 21:18
wmcot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

'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.
2nd August 2007, 21:23
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

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.
2nd August 2007, 21:29
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

: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's still some chance for you! ;)
2nd August 2007, 21:37
ioan

Here's Macaluso's answer to Ron:

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

Short and clever.
2nd August 2007, 21:40
markabilly

Not strange but certainly fair

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmcot

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:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page