FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

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!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

Are you for real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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?