FIA sends spy case to Court of Appeal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Although, had Mclaren said "We can't accept this because what you are doing is criminal and this is better handled by the FIA", it would have saved an awful lot of suspicion.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The fact that they happily accepted the information and used it in the way the did, knowing it had come from a criminal source, rather does shoot them in the foot when it comes to their integrity.

---

Forgive me if I'm being slow on the uptake, but how exactly did they use it? This is what we have seen no evidence of thus far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

---

So this is a pack of lies then?:

Quote:

---

I again ask you to look at the real facts, which are that Ferrari fully participated in the hearing before the Council.
First, Ferrari submitted a lengthy, albeit grossly misleading, memorandum dated 16th July 2007 along with supporting documents which together totalled 118 pages.
Ferrari did not send McLaren the memorandum. The memorandum was circulated to the Council on the 20 July. McLaren did not see it until two days before the hearing and it was only then that we were able to correct its grossly inaccurate contents.
In the meantime, the misleading Ferrari memorandum or sections of it appear to have been leaked to the Italian press as much of the Italian press reports echo elements of that memorandum.
In addition to this Ferrari, who were represented by lawyers, were given several opportunities by the FIA President to ask questions and make submissions throughout the hearing. Mr Todt also gave evidence.
It was clear that the FIA President afforded Ferrari every opportunity to be heard in order to ensure that all relevant matters were heard by the WMSC. Indeed, at the very end of the proceeding, Ferrari intervened with a request to make further closing comments. Ferrari's request was permitted and their lawyer proceeded to make further detailed closing comments at some length.

---

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Forgive me if I'm being slow on the uptake, but how exactly did they use it? This is what we have seen no evidence of thus far.

---

They (Mclaren) asked the FIA for clarification on Ferrari's floor.

That's very suspicious, given the events that have unfolded since. Admittedly, they were within their rights to ask for clarification, but the trail of evidence is that they recieved the email in March and then asked for clarification.

Had they asked for clarification when the Ferrari first appeared with it's sprung floor gadget, in February, there would be no evidence.

The very fact that this was not the time-scale of events supports Ferrari's claim.

Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren (well, not regarding the email anyway.......admittedly there would be from the last 10 years).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So this is a pack of lies then?:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/61260

---

Well, it's written by the same Ron Dennis who the FIA didn't believe in Hungary at the weekend, who is the same Ron Dennis who has publically stated an outright lie that the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne.

It certainly doesn't come from an objective and reliable source.

Unless your biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

...knowing it had come from a criminal source...

---

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

---

Tell that to a judge.

It is only whistle-blowing if it is sent to the correct and relevant authorities.

Contacting the opposition with information from your company is not whistle-blowing, it is a criminal act.

You better check the small print of your own employment contract.

I find it incredulous that a knowledgable man doesn't know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

They (Mclaren) asked the FIA for clarification on Ferrari's floor.

That's very suspicious, given the events that have unfolded since. Admittedly, they were within their rights to ask for clarification, but the trail of evidence is that they recieved the email in March and then asked for clarification.

Had they asked for clarification when the Ferrari first appeared with it's sprung floor gadget, in February, there would be no evidence.

The very fact that this was not the time-scale of events supports Ferrari's claim.

Had the FIA independently investigated the Ferrari floor after recieving a whistle-blowing email, then there would be no ill-feeling from Ferrari towards Mclaren (well, not regarding the email anyway.......admittedly there would be from the last 10 years).

---

If, then, this is all to do with the floor rather than McLaren gaining some sort of performance, strategy or operational advantage through reading the documents, I can't help but feel that the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion to a degree. It is perfectly feasible that people within F1 already knew about the Ferrari floor; these things don't have a habit of remaining secret for long, even when there aren't leaked documents involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I read all that ronspeak complete with spinning and BS! :p :



You didn't seem to be that understanding when Ferrari complained about the verdict, but you understand Ron's attacks and drivel! :rolleyes:



Other excuses?!



So is RD upset because Malacuso wanted a fair hearing for the case, or is he afraid that McLaren will get finally busted for spying on another team?
They've already been found guilty and now they will likely be punished too, and even if it will only be a fine (which will keep everyone happy) it will in fact leave no more doubts about McLaren being at fault in the whole affair!

He could have saved the money and the time of going to the copy shop to make those copies, Max and Todt also read newspapers! ;)

---

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

Perhaps Ferrari need to take a long hard look at why their employees would behave in such a manner.

Remember, the one guy who has alluded to assisting in getting Ferrari's their bullett proof reliability was 'moved internally', then treated very badly, set up, and sacked. And now, they can't figure out why unreliability is creeping in.

Sheesh, talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Welcome back to the Ferrari team of old........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Well, it's written by the same Ron Dennis who the FIA didn't believe in Hungary at the weekend, who is the same Ron Dennis who has publically stated an outright lie that the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne.

It certainly doesn't come from an objective and reliable source.

Unless your biased.

---

So you don't believe that the FIA heard any arguments from Ferrari at all during those proceedings, and that that entire description is a fabrication? This is rather different from Dennis saying that the floor was illegal in Melbourne, which is untrue, but hardly a lie on the scale of fabricating an entire description of what happened at an FIA hearing and can be easily proved one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

IMHO Ferrari's floor is a side-show. Ron Dennis has already said:
The issue surrounding Stepney's email regarding Ferrari's floor was looked at by the original hearing.

One reason for there being so much focus on the email (exibit #1!) is that it supposedly shows McLaren illegally obtaining confidential Ferrari information to gain an advantage. The FIA have not accepted Ferrari's argument that this was the case.

This is crucial because without it Ferrari are having great difficulty proving their accusations that McLaren illegally obtained and used the 780-page document (exibit #2!). They appear to have no evidence, other than Coughlan's possession, that suggests McLaren had any knowledge of the document, let alone used it in any way.

Ferrari need the email to be seen as a case of theft of confidential information used to gain an advantage, because, by association, that makes it appear that McLaren (not Coughlan) could have obtained and used the document to do the same.

---

The issue at hand in this end of the case against McLaren , is whether the "whistle-blower" moniker is appropriate .
Ron's case hinges on his convincing the FIA that Ferrari were , indeed , illegal .
If he is correct about this , then Ferrari should be wiped from the records in the Oz gp .
But , reports were , that the floors were changed up and down the pit lane .
Would all those moving floors have to removed from the results ?

As you said earlier , it affected everyone . Mind you , I think that that is more true in the sense that everyone now had to fly with the same rules . McLaren didn't have to change , as they supposedly were asking if they could , not protesting .

Dennis knew the Ferrari was illegal in Melbourne , and didn't protest the results , even though he lost points to the reds ?
That could have been the double burn , and an opportunity that I can't believe Ron would miss .


Ron is trying desperately to attach the word "illegal" to Ferrari in Oz , when he knows full well they were not .
Ron should be careful he doesn't say much more , as it will only point publicly to the stewards and/or the FIA getting it wrong , when they didn't .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

The issue at hand in this end of the case against McLaren , is whether the "whistle-blower" moniker is appropriate .
Ron's case hinges on his convincing the FIA that Ferrari were , indeed , illegal .

---

I don't think it does. It hinges rather more on whether Ferrari can prove that McLaren actually made use of those documents. The legality of the Ferraris at the time of the Australian GP should not be in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

So you don't believe that the FIA heard any arguments from Ferrari at all during those proceedings, and that that entire description is a fabrication? This is rather different from Dennis saying that the floor was illegal in Melbourne, which is untrue, but hardly a lie on the scale of fabricating an entire description of what happened at an FIA hearing and can be easily proved one way or the other.

---

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.

---

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't think it does. It hinges rather more on whether Ferrari can prove that McLaren actually made use of those documents. The legality of the Ferraris at the time of the Australian GP should not be in question.

---

You missed the words "in this end" in my post .

Ron is painting the reds black before the case is heard .

If Ron is shown to have been using information from Stepney to impede the reds and others , rather than being a victim of an illegal car , it shows he will use such an advantage .
It also shows directly how they could have used info in a 780 page document without it showing up on thier car .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

What I am saying is that, having lied once, he is not a reliable witness.

---

It's quite a simple question. Do you seriously believe that the account of the FIA hearing is all a lie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

If, then, this is all to do with the floor rather than McLaren gaining some sort of performance, strategy or operational advantage through reading the documents, I can't help but feel that the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion to a degree.

---

It's not all to do with floor. The documents are potentially a much bigger issue. The floor saga is the key to everything else.

The floor is important in relation to the documents as it could, or could not be, the 'smoking gun' in all of this.

With the floor, Ferrari will, in all probability, be trying to argue that Mclaren acted on information that was illegally obtained as it was not whistle-blowing as defined by law.

If they can prove that, then the appeal hearing is much more likely to believe that Mclaren also used the documents.

That's why the floor is the key....but also why it's only the tip of the iceberg.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the iceberg melts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

---

Ferrari made a submission , it's true , but it is pretty easy debating with a piece of paper .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Ferrari made a submission , it's true , but it is pretty easy debating with a piece of paper .

---

They were represented by lawyers, which is rather different.

I don't know whether they could have represented themselves at the hearing — someone else may be aware of this — but presumably they felt their lawyers capable of the task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It's quite a simple question. Do you seriously believe that the account of the FIA hearing is all a lie?

---

A 100% lie? Probably not. There was definitely a hearing.

But I don't believe it's 100% accurate, either.

I believe it is the statement of a man who has been proven to lie before and also the statement of a man who has every reason to put across a version of events to suit his own agenda.

Which is why I, and I would imagine so to would any half-decent lawyer, have issues with it being proported as an undeniably factual statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

They were represented by lawyers, which is rather different.

I don't know whether they could have represented themselves at the hearing — someone else may be aware of this — but presumably they felt their lawyers capable of the task.

---

It all depends on what the lawyers brief was and what the rules of the hearing would allow them to do.

The lawyers could simply have been present to make sure that the hearing was run within the prescribed remit.

There are occasions, such as at inquests, where lawyers cannot ask questions. Only the judges have that power.

With the new appeal being confirmed by the FIA as allowing Ferrari to state their case, then the lawyers will have more of a direct impact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

What you are refusing to say is more interesting after having said that the FIA did not hear Ferrari's argument.

---

The original hearing had Coughlan's affadavit, given to the FIA by Ferrari.

That is not the same as being allowed to ask direct questions to the accused.

The original hearing was simply concerned with the charge facing Mclaren and was not concerned with legal arguments from Ferrari, hence why we now have a new appeal hearing.

May I suggest that, having read the small print in your employment contract, you might find it useful to proceed to a library and read a few books on basic law?

You might find it extremely enlightening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

It is only whistle-blowing if it is sent to the correct and relevant authorities.

Contacting the opposition with information from your company is not whistle-blowing, it is a criminal act.

You better check the small print of your own employment contract.

I find it incredulous that a knowledgable man doesn't know that.

---

Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Firstly, the Mclaren 4th pedal situation is not immaterial. It is cut from the same cloth as the Ferrari floor.

Both were an attempt to circumnavigate the regulations. One (Mclaren) fell foul of an existing rule, whereas the Ferrari floor needed an amendment to the regulations for it to be deemed illegal.

The Ferrari floor, like the Renault Mass-damper last year, passed the FIA prescribed test procedure at Melbourne, much in the same way that the Michelin tyres passed the test procedure in Hungary in 2003.

By the time of Malaysia, when the regulations and the prescribed testing procedure had been revised, it would have been illegal.........but it was no longer on the car.

As has been said before, if you are within the regulations, you are not committing an act of illegality.

If you believe that Ferrari were illegal in Melbourne, then by the same logic you have to accuse Renault of illegality in 2006 and all Michelin runners, including the saintly Mclarens, of being illegal pre-Italian GP in 2003.

But I don't expect for one minute your blinkers could allow your own logic to bring about the downfall of your argument.

And, just for the record, I don't believe that Renault were illegal nor that the Michelin runners in 2003 were illegal. They were smart, that's all.

---

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

---

The other similar case involved Jordan's anti-stall system in 1999. In that instance, Jordan asked the FIA for clarification and it was ruled illegal. Nowadays, this would cause an enormous stink, calls for their points to be revoked, and so on ad nauseam.

speaking of appeals, McLaren have pressed ahead with the appeal for constructors points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

OK, lets look at the MDS. I dont think it should have been made illegal and I do not agree with the twin hull explanation that the FIA gave. I think it was a genuine innovation that should have been left for that season and any decision made then.

after refreshing my memory, the brake pedal can be viewed in a similar light to the moveable floor. although I maintain that it was an innovation that allowed McLaren to brake at parts where they get a steering advantage, it can be constrewed as an aid to turn the car. I see this as quite innovative though and not a deliberate way to get around the testing process.

Michelin though was quite similar in that they used the testing method to produce a tyre that did not conform to either the rules or the spirit of the rules. this is the same as Ferrari and a deliberate effort to circumvent a specific rule. I think it has probably been dealt with appropiatly by the FIA in that neither Michelin or Ferrari were punished but they both were being very cheeky.

---

That's a little more balanced :up: but still not quite. The rules at the time (and still today) say that the steering of the car can only be done with the steering wheel. So what McLaren was doing was openly illegal.

McLaren's third pedal was in violation of this rule:

Quote:

---

11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force
exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all
times.

---

On the other hand, there is no description of the floor in the regulations: you won't find a statement like "the floor has to be flat". All the bodywork regulations are given in terms of measurements. If your car satisfies the measurements, it is legal. Just to show you how RD lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Whistleblower does not = criminal. One of the central tennants of whistleblowing is confidentiality.

---

For the last time (hopefully) on this thread - CHECK YOUR DICTIONARY FOR THE DEFINITIONS OF WHISTLEBLOWER VS. SPY!

A whistleblower reports wrongdoing to the proper legal authorities.

A spy gives confidential information to competitors.

Simple enough?

If Stepney was a "whistleblower" he would have gone to the FIA or the stewards at a GP. Since he emailed his technical information to McLaren, he is a spy.

Not that hard to see the difference unless RD prescribed your eyeglasses!

One more clarification of Ferrari's "illegal flexible floor":

All F1 floor flex - they would snap into bits if they didn't (same goes for airplane wings.)

At Melbourne, the flex of Ferrari's floor was measured according to the rules at the time and was found to be within the acceptable range.

After Melbourne, through a "subtle hint" from McLaren (via Stepney) the measurement of a floor's flexibility was changed. ALL cars complied with this new measurement by Malaysia.

Ferrari would have cheated if their floor at Malaysia (and after) did not meet the new standards.

Am I being too simple?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Have you ever been involved in any form of whistleblowing process?

---

No, but if I find the need to do so, I know the proper authorities to go to!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

All Ferrari are going to succeed in achieving if McLaren are punished is embarrasing the FIA. They are basically telling the FIA they are not doing their job properly.

---

About time somebody told them!!! There have been so many rulings or non-rulings made by the FIA (including for or against Ferrari) that they don't even seem to have a shred of common sense in the whole organization. As far as racing is concerned, the FIA seem more interested in maintaining public image and the flow of money into Bernie's pockets than the good of racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

No, but if I find the need to do so, I know the proper authorities to go to!!!

---

Thank you.

Perhaps if you had, you, and everyone who cuts & pastes a dictionary definition, would realise that whistleblowing is not an easy, simple or clear-cut process. Here it is being seen purely in the context of Stepneygate and is being used as a stick to beat Ron Dennis with.

Take a step back and see whistleblowing for what it is, which is a process that allows employees to raise an issue, or make a complaint, about their employer secure in the knowledge that they are doing so confidentially and without fear of reprisals.

This often repeated phrase - “the proper authorities” – is misleading. “The proper authorities” are those who the whistleblower feels comfortable going to, and who will maintain their confidentiality and deal with their issue effectively.

A good employer will have an internal whistleblowing policy and procedures, and therefore the employer themselves are often the proper authority. An employee should feel able to raise a complaint/concern with their employer confident that their confidentiality will be maintained, and that there will not be reprisals for doing so.

Once a whistleblower has raised an issue with their employer under cover of the whistleblower policy their confidentiality is maintained throughout, and after, any investigation of the issue by the employer. This should be the case regardless of the outcome.

Now, in the context of Stepneygate, if we assume what Stepney is alleged to have done is whistleblowing then we also have to assume he felt unable to raise the issue internally. Given that the concern was that Ferrari’s floor had been designed to get around the existing rules, it hardly seems worth Stepney telling his bosses something they already knew, even if Ferrari do have a whistleblowing policy!

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

Passing details of Ferrari’s floor to an old friend at McLaren would be the best way for Stepney to raise the question of illegality without being directly involved in the following process. Teams raise questions of legality with the FIA on a frequent basis. Having seen the cars in Melbourne who would question why McLaren were raising the issue (who did at the time?), and who could possibly establish any connection with Stepney (who did at the time?)?

Therefore (allegedly!) Stepney achieved the aims of a whistleblower - confidentiality intact and no reprisals from Ferrari (at the time!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

Passing details of Ferrari’s floor to an old friend at McLaren would be the best way for Stepney to raise the question of illegality without being directly involved in the following process.

---

Are you for real?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Are you for real?

---

It is the logical process is it not.

If Nigel went to the FIA, he would have been hung, drawn and quartered.

By informing McLaren, WHO DID NOT USE THIS TO BENEFIT THEIR CAR, but instead, subtly asked the FIA for clarification, they avoided a big protest, got the matter resolved and it should have been the end of the matter.

Lets not forget it was Ron that followed the correct process in all of this and if you want to be pedantic, a Ferrari employee that did not.

the big problem arises because Mike and Nigel then decide to screw over their employers in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

That's a little more balanced :up: but still not quite. The rules at the time (and still today) say that the steering of the car can only be done with the steering wheel. So what McLaren was doing was openly illegal.

McLaren's third pedal was in violation of this rule:



On the other hand, there is no description of the floor in the regulations: you won't find a statement like "the floor has to be flat". All the bodywork regulations are given in terms of measurements. If your car satisfies the measurements, it is legal. Just to show you how RD lies.

---

sorry mate but I dont know how to access previous versions of the rules from so far back. I only know how to get the up to date ones where ammendments have been made.

One little thing confused me though?

Quote:

---

11.1.2 The brake system must be designed in order that the force
exerted on the brake pads within each circuit are the same at all
times.

---

how does this account for the drivers being able to independantly change the bias from left, to right, to front, to rear many times during a lap. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

It is the logical process is it not.

If Nigel went to the FIA, he would have been hung, drawn and quartered.

By informing McLaren, WHO DID NOT USE THIS TO BENEFIT THEIR CAR, but instead, subtly asked the FIA for clarification, they avoided a big protest, got the matter resolved and it should have been the end of the matter.

Lets not forget it was Ron that followed the correct process in all of this and if you want to be pedantic, a Ferrari employee that did not.

the big problem arises because Mike and Nigel then decide to screw over their employers in the future.

---

I truly hope you don't ever plan to be in a court-room yourself at anytime, because your legal knowledge would see you serve a 20 year stretch for a parking ticket.

Informing Mclaren because the 'whistle-blower' was scared of going to the FIA does not make it the right way to go about things.

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

The notion that because a Ferrari employee did not follow correct procedures makes it legitimate merely underlines your lack of legal knowledge.

Information of any description relating to a design, whether that design is strictly kosher or has the intention of working around a regulation, has an intellectual copyright.

By giving Mclaren information about a Ferrari design, the 'whistle-blower' did not blow the whistle, he broke the rules regarding intellectual copyright.

By receiving informations on a competitors designs through an illegitimate channel, Mclaren are also guilty of breaking the same rules.

Hence, in case it escaped your knowledge, why the original FIA hearing found Mclaren of being guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

So, what was his next move? What was the best way to maintain his own confidentiality and not risk reprisals from his employer. The FIA? Perhaps, although as the direct provider of information to the FIA it is very likely that his name would be revealed to his employer at an early stage.

Passing details of Ferrari’s floor to an old friend at McLaren would be the best way for Stepney to raise the question of illegality without being directly involved in the following process.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one. He should have gone to the FIA. At some point, Stepney would have had to have been directly involved in the process, like it or not, for his evidence would have had to have been presented. I simply can't see how his subsequent actions tally with the idea of him keeping his job at Ferrari without them finding out.

This, of course, brings us on to the part of this that everyone is forgetting about — the alleged 'white powder' and what Stepney sees as the Ferrari smear against him. With this being the subject of a criminal investigation in Italy, I don't fancy his chances of a fair hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Ron Dennis did not follow the correct procedure, as Mclaren took information that it is illegal for them to have obtained in the manner in which they received it.

---

By the time it got to him, wasn't it already too late, though? Hadn't the information already been received by the company, in the form of Coughlan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flat.tyres

It is the logical process is it not.

---

Logic does not come into it as applying logic is not a defence for commiting a criminal act.

It may seem to you that the law is therefore an 'ass', but it is still the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

By the time it got to him, wasn't it already too late, though? Hadn't the information already been received by the company, in the form of Coughlan?

---

Yes, which is why I do not believe Ron to be guilty of a deliberate attempt to gain information regarding Ferrari's designs.

But even if he had no intention of doing that, the situation is that Mclaren should have alerted both Ferrari and the FIA to the situation as soon as it arose.

The welfare of the criminal should not be used as an excuse not to report a criminal act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Perhaps if you had, you, and everyone who cuts & pastes a dictionary definition, would realise that whistleblowing is not an easy, simple or clear-cut process. Here it is being seen purely in the context of Stepneygate and is being used as a stick to beat Ron Dennis with.

---

I agree with you on this, but it still seems like an odd way of going about it in a sport in which there is a governing body which can take responsibility for dealing with such cases. In many other forms of work, it may be less clear-cut as to whom the whistleblower takes their grievance or information, but in F1, the procedure seems a bit more obvious.

Why, I wonder, did Stepney think that the FIA would deal with the matter in such a way as to immediately implicate him with his employer?