FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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?

---

Actually we seem to be talking about 2 different things. Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.

Since McLaren received the information in a legally questionable manner, if they wanted to be above reproach, they should have taken it to Charlie Whiting, Max Mosley, or a course steward since those would have been the proper authorities. The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.

Ron can claim his team has integrity all he wants, but the actions of his team show otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

look, lets not beat around the bush on this.

McLaren had a design and copied it to the FIA for clarification in which they asked if it was legal.

face it, Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited and because McLaren asked for clarification, the FIA altered the way the floor was tested to stop the cheat.

you caqnnot argue against the facts in this one because the FIA are saying that such a device is illegal.

---

It's quite easy to argue your 'fact' because your 'fact' is not exactly a 'fact'.

The FIA have not said that the floor was illegal in Melbourne.

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.

So it was either legal or it couldn't be proved to be illegal, which in case you don't have sufficient legal knowledge, equates to the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

well, I didn't quote the tests so lets leave that out of it.

if the floor complied with the regs, then Ferrari would still be using it, wouldn't they?

---

The floor complied with the allowable flexing as measured at Melbourne in scrutineering, hence it was legal.

The method of measurement was changed after Melbourne redefining the interpretation of the rules and causing the design of the floor to be modified. If the floor was to be used under the new rules it would be illegal.

Here's an example for you - In 1996, the rules were modified to require a V10 engine. If a team ran a V12, they would have been disqualified. Does that make all the teams running v12's in 1995 and before illegal? No. Rules change and are modified on an ongoing basis in F1. It happens all the time.

Mass dampers, rear brake steering, etc. were all declared illegal AFTER the rules were re-interpreted. Should McLaren and Renault be disqualified from all the races these "illegal" (your word, not mine) devices were used in?

Does Ron Dennis make your eyeglasses? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Stepney is the guilty party and his actions were those of a spy, not a whistleblower.

---

Without knowing the full story of Stepney's situation at Ferrari and what his motivations were it's difficult to know for sure. Perhaps we'll know more given time, although probably not in time for the FIA appeal hearing unfortunately. If Stepney did send the email (he has denied doing so) it's hard to imagine him doing that for reasons other than to damage Ferrari, and if we assume that was his intent then it could be argued that he succeeded to a degree.

Whatever Stepney's motivation, once the email was sent the information was out there. Did McLaren use the information to copy the design? No. Did they raise the issue with the FIA? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

The way it was handled by asking a "hypothetical" question about the design of floors seems that McLaren were being more devious rather than coming straight forward with the "integrity" that Ron keeps going on about.

---

Perhaps, but the fact remains that the issue was raised with the FIA, and addressed. That would have happened regardless of how the email was dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

If they had reported the email, I doubt they would have received the 780 page document (unless they, Coughlan, already had it) since they would have shown that they were not interested in receiving other team's IP.

---

That's exactly the kind of circumstantial accusation I was referring to earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The 'fact' of the matter is that the results in Australia have not been protested nor have Ferrari been disqualified.

---

Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Correct. Ferrari's floor was legal in Australia because it had been designed to get around the FIA test as it was in Australia. In the light of information that pointed this out, the test was revised.

---

I still cannot accept this.

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.

what was changed was the way the floor was tested because Charlie Whiting said that a movable floor such as the one McLaren proposed, was strictly prohibited and introduced new testing procedures to ensure people couldnt cheat in this way.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that was strictly prohibited, then it was illegal whether or not the testing procedures identified it as such.

if Ferrari had a sprung floor that did not contravene the rules, they wouldnt have changed it, would they, as the rules have not been changed.

the only reason that Ferrari got away with this is that in the first GP, there is always a load of scrabbleing with teams trying it on and other teams asking if what the opposition is doing is legal. It always happens. there is an unwritten understanding that allows a degree of freedom and always has been. this, in my opinion, is the only reason Ferrari wasnt boll*cked but doesnt change the basic premis of illegality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

If the floor was legal in Australia, it would still be legal now as the RULES have NOT been changed.

If anyone can prove to me that the rules have been changed then I will accept it was legal in Australia.

---

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

Flat.tyres has a point :up:
A rule change is a rule change and a revised test is a revised test. Just as a clarification of the rules is a clarification of the rules. :erm:
Donkey's verdict: illegal :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

---

no I dont.

lets take a speeding car then.

the law (rules) say you cannot speed over 30 in a 30 zone. the current test is a static camera or mobile units. if you do over 30, are you breaking the rules? Yes or No?

so, to stop people exploiting this loophole, ie speeding when there is no test in place, the testing procedure is changed so that a GPS system is fitted in every car to monitor if you speed.

the rule is still the same. you get penalty points and a fine if you speed but just the way you are tested has been altered to stop people getting away with it.

see what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Do you not accept that the revised test was effectively a rule change?

---

If it's about Ferrari than even white is black for some people! :D