FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.