:D Surprised Bernie hasn't thought of this already!! "PRO WRESTLING F1 STARS!!" kinda has a ring to it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
Printable View
:D Surprised Bernie hasn't thought of this already!! "PRO WRESTLING F1 STARS!!" kinda has a ring to it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
It all serves to make me even more certain that the moving floor is an entirely separate issue.
But you must admit that the possibility exists that the information came from the documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Conversely, if McLaren had never received the documents, that possibility would not exist.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trevortherevver
Good point!! Let's string Ron Dennis up now and ask questions later.
Sorry!! I just woke up from my mid day nap.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcot
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.
"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/headlin...04204508.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.
Has anyone heard of another issue Ferrari have with Maclaren, relating to the Vodafone decals on the Mac cars?
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.