FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

It seems like the hearing was a bit of a wallabee court , with those attending not hearing both sides of the story . For that fact alone , the decision is being questioned.

---

I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

---

FIA's guilty but not punished verdict was bringing the sport into disrepute, they now decided however that Bernie's money is less important than risking to be laughed about every time they give a sentence from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

McLaren crying out loud as soon as they feel the heat:



What was that about Ferrari making noise and hurting the sport when they felt wronged by the FIA?
Look at McLaren now! They even say that the WMC had a unanimous decision when one of it's members said that it wasn't true!

---

C'mon, even the FIA have confirmed that the decision was unanimous: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19461.html

And one may think whatever one wishes about the FIA, but I do not think they would knowingly falsify the outcome of a WMSC meeting, in particular as 26 (?) members were present and none of those - other than the gentleman from Italy, who so happens to be a self-confessed Ferrari supporter - have come out to say since Saturday, when the FIA clarification was published, that the decision was in fact not unanimous.

Be that as it may, I am looking forward to what the Court of Appeals will decide and hoping that its decision will put all discussions to rest, so that we all can concentrate on the action taking place on track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm99

...in particular as 26 (?) members were present...

---

According to Martin Brundle's Times article there were 25 World Council members. Also:

Quote:

---

"...there were upwards of 75 people in the room with others participating by satellite link, and the questioning was comprehensive and aggressive."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm99

I am looking forward to what the Court of Appeals will decide and hoping that its decision will put all discussions to rest, so that we all can concentrate on the action taking place on track.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm99

C'mon, even the FIA have confirmed that the decision was unanimous: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19461.html

---

That's what they would have liked us to believe.
How is that unanimous if one of the members says he was against the decision? Maybe checking up the unanimous word in the dictionary is in order? :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Or, alternatively, time to **** your pants Ron?

Having already been found guilty, chances are that any further evidence will merely add to the pressure for a sanction befitting the crime to be imposed.

Putting on my biased red hat for one moment, a points deduction would be correct, but putting on my reasonable hat a cheque or postal order made payable to Ferrari SPA by way of an compensation payment will suffice.

Much as I would like to believe that my beloved Scuderia are only being beaten by the skullduggery of Wokingistas, I don't necessarily wish to see the championship decided in a court room.

---

How about putting Ron Dennis in stocks in the township square for a couple of days. http://au.encarta.msn.com/dictionary...27/stocks.html

You could set up a tomatoe stand nearby. :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That's what they would have liked us to believe.
How is that unanimous if one of the members says he was against the decision? Maybe checking up the unanimous word in the dictionary is in order? :p :

---

If he says afterwards that he has been against the decision, but actually voted in favor of it, it can still be unanimous :p :

Do you not think that if indeed Signore Macaluso had voted against the decision in the WMSC and then the FIA comes out to say everyone had been for it, this would have been one of the points that Macaluso would have raised in his letter to Max Mosley, in particular as this in itself might be a reason for appeal? I certainly would not keep quiet about my vote not being taken seriously - yet no word from Macaluso that the FIA's clarifying statement from July 28 was false in that the decision was not unanimous. Nor, as I pointed out earlier, did anyone else present at the meeting contest the FIA's claim.

In any case, Macaluso's comments immediately after the meeting on July 26 did sound a bit different:

Quote:

---

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False
Italian Luigi Macaluso, a member of the 25 man council, told the Gazzetta dello Sport Web site: "There was not the proof. We could not have done more."

---

And for those who don't believe English-speaking websites, here's the full reaction of Macaluso from the Gazzetta dello Sport (http://www.gazzetta.it/Motori/Formula1/ )

Quote:

---

Luigi Macaluso (Membro Consiglio Fia):
"Non c'erano le prove per un vantaggio da parte della McLaren". È il commento di Luigi Macaluso, neo presidente della Csai, all'uscita del Consiglio mondiale della Fia a cui ha partecipato come membro effettivo. "È stata una riunione molto tecnica - ha precisato - molto professionale. Il fatto è che non c'erano delle prove evidenti a carico della McLaren. Dei singoli si occuperà la giustizia oridinaria". Macaluso ha poi sottolineato di non credere che dalla decisione di oggi "scaturisca una mancanza di credibilità della Formula 1". "In effetti - ha concluso - le prove non ci sono. Detto questo c'è stato un trasferimento evidente di informazioni. Non c'è nessun dubbio. Questo trasferimento di informazioni è per me molto grave. Decisione appellabile ? È tutto appellabile".

---

Essentially, he says that that hasn't been proof that McLaren gained an advantage, that the verdict would not damage the credibility of F1, and that there has definitively been a transfer of information which he regards as very seriously. (please do correct any mistakes I made in translating the text, my Italian is not so good).
Nowhere does he actually say he did not vote in favor of the decision...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

On another (related) note, would those in the forum community who do not doubt the integrity of Ron Dennis please explain why, at the 2003 Brazilian GP, did he blatantly and publically attempt, and for a shortwhile achieve, to rob the real and deserved winner of his victory by saying that he hadn't completed the lap when he knew only too well that Giancarlo Fisichella had completed the lap before the third place car crashed?

Not exactly the actions of a man whose integrity is beyond doubt.

Just thought I'd mention it.

---

I recall the race stewards being equally as confused; nor did I think that there was any intention to mislead on anyone's part. But this is now rather beside the point, I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

I do think Max Mosley has allowed this appeal in the light of Ferrari's very public, and very vocal, criticism of the original hearing. The FIA simply could not allow that to continue without it bringing the sport into disrepute. Charging Ferrari for this reason would be counter-productive. Therefore I think Mosley has wisely allowed an appeal to go ahead.

---

the best thing that he ever did ..... way to go Max .
McLaren , you broke the rules , you should pay the price ....!
I still want Alonso to win the WC .....