Ferrari/McLaren Espionage Story [merged]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

You mean you actually believe Dennis has suspended him, you're getting soft old man. :p :

---

At least I'm not talking bull$hit. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

At least I'm not talking bull$hit. :rolleyes:

---

who is? surely not an insult or slanderous accusation there ioan :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

who is? surely not an insult or slanderous accusation there ioan :laugh:

---

You can't stop yourself from mixing into others conversation?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

At least I'm not talking bull$hit. :rolleyes:

---

I do hope you're not referring to me?
Or has lighthearted discussion suddenly become forbidden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You can't stop yourself from mixing into others conversation?!

---

Take a look at post your post #464, now are you a pot or a kettle? :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by janneppi

I do hope you're not referring to me?
Or has lighthearted discussion suddenly become forbidden?

---

My heart is anything but light these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

A McLaren employee receives stolen plans without the knowledge of his employers and as soon as they are made aware of this, they take appropiate action, suspend the employee pending investigation and co-operate fully with that investigation.

---

Why did it take them from March/April until July to take "appropriate" action????? That's my question. Coughlan admits showing the documents to several McLaren employees. Even if they didn't want anything to do with this, why did it take several months to suspend him and "cooperate fully" when they should have blown the whistle on him immediately if they wished to maintain their "integrity."

It is the delay in action that casts serious doubts on McLaren's statements of innocence and integrity. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Why did it take them from March/April until July to take "appropriate" action????? That's my question. Coughlan admits showing the documents to several McLaren employees. Even if they didn't want anything to do with this, why did it take several months to suspend him and "cooperate fully" when they should have blown the whistle on him immediately if they wished to maintain their "integrity."

It is the delay in action that casts serious doubts on McLaren's statements of innocence and integrity. :(

---

I'd like to know who Coughlan showed the plans to, when he showed the plans to them and in what context, and why they clammed up. This will be very interesting. Did Coughlan want the McLaren employees to jump ship with him to Honda? or some other team?

So many questions, and so few answers.

Unless there is a proverbial "smoking gun" in the Coughlan statement then I very much doubt that McLaren will be punished in any way. Even if there is a smoking gun in the statement McLaren will probably still escape serious punishment as it will come down to Coughlan's word against McLaren's.

I think the only effect this whole saga will have is to possibly change some peoples opinion of McLaren. I've hated McLaren for nearly 20 years so this hasn't changed my opinion of them at all. :D

I don't want to see McLaren excluded from the championship for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think that they have actually benefitted from Coughlan's possesion of the Ferrari documents and secondly, it would render Ferrari's inevitable championships somewhat hollow and leave a big question mark over Raikkonen's or Massa's first, and perhaps only, championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

[I]f one of [McLaren's] employees under contract to work for them took illegal and stolen documents into their factory, they are also responsible for the actions of their employee, arent they. Where's a lawyer on this forum to answer that one :?:

---

You refer, 555, to the doctrine of "respondeat superior" which holds that in certain cases the boss must answer for the screw-ups of his employee. But the doctrine is inapplicable where, as in this case, the employee is acting outside the legitimate scope of his authority. Robers v. Town of Black Mountain, 224 N.C. 119.

555.

Time devoted to:

Reading your post: 00:01
Arguing with my wife (also a lawyer) about the doctrine of "respondeat superior": 02:30
Researching reference to the Black Mountain case: 00:10
Replying to your post: 0:03

Total time devoted to this matter: 2hrs 44mins, call it 2:30 at $400/hr.

Please remit the sum of $1,000 by return.

(Please note that, because you are a long-standing client, I have charged only for my own time spent conferring with my wife.)

Thanking you,

Gannex