FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

The anger of Ferrari fans does seem rather misdirected. It's the information that did the (perceived) damage to their team, not the way it got to the FIA.

---

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?

Yeah, right.

The way the information got to the FIA is very much the issue here, as it blows a great big gaping hole in the idea/argument that Mclaren did not gain from having further information (the 780 page document) about Ferrari given to them.

We are asked to believe that a team which used illicitly obtained information in March then did not do the same in April/May.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Yes, as a Ferrari fan I'm pissed off with Stepney, but he will be dealt with in the courts. Mclaren, on the other hand, who have been complicit with Stepney's illegal actions and allowed them to continue, we are asked to believe are really Saints.

Therefore our anger is not misdirected at all, it's very well aimed at Mclaren and their apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Mclaren was imply trying to have their cake and eat it too, and they got caught in the act, just as they have on several occaisions this year...problem is that we have a "moderator" who can not accept it, so..........so much for being even handed in this matter or accepting that which can not be denied as someone might expect from a moderator rather than the whims and emotions of favoritism

---

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

---

Had Ron Dennis not already confirmed that Stepney supplied the info, then yours would be a reasonable argument......

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.

The head of the team you are defending has already stated that the info came from Stepney and not from his own engineers. That's pretty clear evidence.

So, while it should have been possible for Mclaren to have figured it out themselves and for that to have been the source of their request for clarification, it most obviously was not.

Unless you believe Stepney and not Dennis, which doesn't do much for your arguments that Mclaren are innocent.

So, yes, your contention is easily refuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

---

Should just add that we've been doing that for 17 odd pages, but you're still coming up with the same tired and endlessly refuted/disproved statements.

You keep quoting Stepney as a credible witness, for example, when even Ron Dennis has publically denounced him.

No wonder Markabilly has lost his patience.

I, on the other hand, shall never tire of it, for it's both entertaining and a requirement of those who hold higher office in the Church of Enzo to defeat the infidels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The anger of Ferrari fans is misdirected?

---

No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Unfortunately for your argument, Ron Dennis has confirmed that Stepney gave them the information, which is not very good either for Stepney or for anyone using Stepney's statements as credible evidence.

---

How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice. Neither of us know who sent the email, but it's safe to say it was sent by a Ferrari employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I, on the other hand, shall never tire of it, for it's both entertaining and a requirement of those who hold higher office in the Church of Enzo to defeat the infidels.

---

Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Instead of denying the right of people to have an opinion that disagrees with your own, how about refuting some of the points made with a good argument that can be (to coin a phrase from ioan) backed up, and contribute to the discussion constructively.

Just as an example, here's how it could work:

Hendersen asked the question would the questions have been raised had McLaren not been given the information. Stepney has said "You only needed to take a look at the car to realize what was wrong, it was obvious for people who work in F1", Craig Scarborough has illustrated how it is possible to get information about what teams are up to, and it's well known that F1 teams employ photographers to get this kind of information.

Are you able to refute that McLaren could, and probably would, have known about Ferrari's floor without the email provided by the Ferrari employee?

---

One can SPECULATE all day long about how it could have happenned and then try to refute this endless speculation about possibilities, chasing one's tail for a million years and never refute all the possibilities of gee, could be it was this or that, and when NS says it was obvious, gee, why did not the inspectors see it...and of course a thief who is trying to save himself from the gallows, is alawys to be trusted...so on....

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable

your argument is the old political excersise of "plausible denialbility": will our denial be plausible, rather than is it TRUE

But none of that is what occurred, and in this case, the issue is not could it have happened differently if the facts were different, but what SHOULD have happened and what DID happen in reality


So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

No, seems rather misdirected in my opinion.

I didn't say the way the information got to the FIA was not an issue, just that it was the information itself which caused a problem for Ferrari, and that information came from one of their own employees.

Any link between the email and the 780-page document is, to date, the subject of speculation. "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it" is not an argument that says otherwise.

---

It very much is an argument that says otherwise. Mclaren themselves set a precedent which, given that, makes a strong argument that having done it once they would do it again.

It is a fact confirmed by Ron Dennis that the email information was used by Mclaren.

Yet Mclaren then claim that they did not look at the 780 page document.

Our argument is that, given what they did with the email information, that is both difficult to accept, unlikely and doubtful.

Mclaren claim that they advised Coughlan to get rid of it, which is in itself the incorrect thing to have done as they should have reported it and not kept quiet. The FIA have already found them guilty of being in possession of documents they shouldn't have had.

To ask us to believe the integrity of Mclaren when

A) They used illegally gained information and have confirmed they did so.
B) They kept quiet about having access to the 780 page document

is beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Participating in discussions that are seen in those terms by some is why I'm losing my patience.

---

Try getting a sense of humour then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Your last comment/question was demonstrates why mere speculation proves nothing: Are you able to refute that Mclaren could and would have known..without the email...is no different than saying the FIA could and would have known without the "aid" from Maclaren....or the fact that I shot him in the head, but sooner or later he was going to die anyway, so I should not be held accountable
.
.
.
.

So by refusing to accept that which is known, you demonstrate my point so very well....

---

your first point is valid. because Stepney (allegedly) sent the email blowing the whistle on an illegal floor, there is no way to prove that McLaren would have discovered it themselves

.
.
.
.
.

but, as Arrows pointed out, it was a topic for discussion way before this between journalists so the likelyhood of it being questioned would have been high wouldn't you say?

is that fairer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

How does you believing Ron Dennis in this instance make any difference. Stepney has said "It's not true that I revealed those irregularities." So you pays your money, you takes your choice.

---

It makes a huge difference to the quality of your argument, taking it from plausible to self-contradictory and self-defeating.

I guess those law books I recommended never left the library shelves.