Printable View
Do you mean by LOGIC as generally known logic or by YOUR LOGIC?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Given this thread I believe that none of us can let go of common sense logic and use your logic, so it's better to stop this nonsense you are spreading.
And when on trial as MAC is, it has always been a fav tactic of many a lawyer to try to distract the attention and need for punishment of your client, by pointing the finger at someone else, to smear the victim--ala a certain basketball player's tactic--to point out that gee, if she did not want sex, why were she asking for it by being in the room, and not only that, she had sex with another guy, why they found so much DNA material there, they still have not figured out who all she been sleeping with........and so on.....
Okay ferrari ain't no angel, so what.....guilty is still guilty.....
And again, it is simply proved by MAC's own covert actions.
Case closed. :s mash:
Get a rope.
opps is that "good for the sake of the sport"????...what about bernie's money...and then LH's claim for eternal fame, which will vastly increase our future rervenue...okay now THAT EXCUSE we can all understand..... :beer:
That's very true, which is why they are no longer running with the floor they ran in Australia ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
gee, I thought it was because the FIA told mac that Mac could not use Mac's "new design", so since Mac could not do it, then both BMW and Ferrari decided they could not either.... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Im a little confused but think you may have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
for the sake of arguement, we can agree that the part was illegal and discuss what McLaren did and why they did it.
you say that they didnt want to burn their source and I think youre correct in that. what their reasoning is for omitting the source and asking for clarification is an interesting question.
if they had of gone to the FIA and said that they want to protest the device, as they believe it was illegal then they would have had to say why they thought it was illegal. The chances are that Ferrari would have been officially warned to change the device and potentially omitted from the race results but Mclaren would have had to say they had a tip off.
similarly, if they went to the FIA and said they had a whistle blower, the chances are that Nigels name would have got back to Ferrari. neither of these would have been good for Nigel and the first option bad for the sport in general.
perhaps there was good intention from McLaren and Ron not to get Ferrari penalised but I dont think so.
you may well be right that someone tipping them off as to any dirty tricks Ferrari were using was an attractive option or it may be that Ron said thanks but no more matey because this is not the way we want to do business.
detirmining whether Ferrari had an illegal part was the easy bit and just the tip of the ice cube, so to speak. the iceberg is another matter.
remember when I mentioned that there were 2 seperate instances, an email and a dossier a week or two before it was confirmed in the press. from other things I know, I truly believe Ron had decided that enough was enough after the first email and having this communication was dangerous which is why he ordered it cut. it was that point onwards that Mike went native.
No, pal, very much not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I do not consider something to be illegal before clarification by the governing body makes it illegal.
Funnily enough, neither does the Governing Body.
You keep quoting the Ferrari as being illegal, but want to ignore the legal terms that would define illegality and legality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
And I repeat, the only terms to judge illegality are in legal terms.
Since you haven't answered my question from two days ago, and you keep repeating the "illegal" word: could you please care to explain me which regulation was violated by Ferrari's floor at Australia (thus making it illegal) ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Au contraire, as I believe you will find they say on the Champs D'Elysee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
dont you think thats rather a childish stance to take on a discussion forum?Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
we all know that the FIA have not said that the device fitted to the Ferrari was illigal.
They have said that the design, which allegedly came from Ferrari, was illegal. we also know that after they said this, Ferrari immediatly took it off their car.
but, you are 100% correct that the FIA did not say the actual device on the Ferrari was illegal.
now, I ask the question as we can deal with opinions here as well can we not?
do you think that the device on the Ferrari was a legal device. not what the FIA say but Logically, would you say it behaved in a similar way to the McLaren design?
come on man. stop hiding behind semantics and lets look at the nuts and bolts of this :laugh: