Ferrari/McLaren Espionage Story [merged]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icsunonove

Valve, I only mentioned the Honda incident to demonstrate the flaw in Tamburello's reasoning about trade secrets. As I said, my recollection is that Honda's system went undetected by the FIA until a tip-off from some ex-employees who had moved to a rival team. Tamburello claimed that the details of Ferrari's moveable floor were trade secrets and the passing and receiving trade secrets is illegal. Well, in that case the FIA should have punished the ex-honda guys and themselves (as recipients) because if Ferrari's floor was a trade secret then so was Honda's fuel tank.

---

Sorry, but the flaw is in your reasoning.

Tipping off the regulatory Sporting Authority is not the same as passing information to another team.

In the case of Honda, it was the former employee and not his new team who blew the whistle, so there is no issue of 'trade secrets'.

No-one is ever prosecuted for whistle-blowing if it is done through the correct channels, and much as Ron Dennis would no doubt love to be thought of as the correct channel, passing info to Mclaren is not the correct channel.

There is, therefore, no relation to the Honda fuel-tank situation and the current Stepneygate saga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Sorry ioan, perhaps "assuming" was the wrong word. "Deciding" would have been better, because I do think some have decided McLaren are guilty without being in possesion of the full facts. There are certainly plenty of theories and assumptions but those do not establish guilt.

Presumption of innocence is a legal right.

---

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.

It's funny to see people here using the "logic" that this year Ferrari's floor was deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, and this is called "Ferrari cheating"; and the same people calls the 2003 Michelin affair, in which the Michelin tyres were deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, "Ferrari cheating". Weird logic :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.

It's funny to see people here using the "logic" that this year Ferrari's floor was deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, and this is called "Ferrari cheating"; and the same people calls the 2003 Michelin affair, in which the Michelin tyres were deemed as breaking the spirit of the rules and thus banned, "Ferrari cheating". Weird logic :s

---

Sorry, but the great wanabee criminal lawyer in me has to point out that you are certainly incorrect in your stated scenario here. You will find such case to be reported that "the allegedly stolen goods were found in the possession the alledged perpetrator..." and he is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, I am not so sure of the situation in France where he is presumed guilty unless proven innocent is anymore the case. Nevertheless, I have been assured by legal argument that the procedure is still much the same in the courts.

In China, of course, things are quite different, and he is a dead duck if arrested and is chucked in jail until somebody can come up with compensation for the injured party, or he is simply marched off into a paddy field, a bullet is inserted at great speed into the back of his head, and his family is sent the bill for said bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

What I have said is that they need a better argument in their defence than the one's that have been offered as arguments on this forum.

---

You are quite wrong here. My argument is impeccable - I have stated all along that it was Elvis. You will see that I will be proven correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tinchote

But Arrows, when you are found with the stolen goods in your possesion, your are pressumed guilty, that's why the police arrests you and you go to trial.

---

True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

Other than photocopying 'the document' what did Coughlan do with it? Was it his intention to take it to Honda? If so why make other McLaren staff aware of it? Did he just make them aware of it and was told to destroy it, or did he make use of it to benefit McLaren? If so, how exactly? If so were his actions condoned by McLaren management?

Is this just a simple case of two men wanting to change jobs, and take their knowledge with them? Something similar happened in 1977 when members of the Shadow team planned to split away and create another GP team. The designer took his designs for the 1978 Shadow and made an Arrows instead, but a judge decided the designs belonged to Shadow so Arrows were made to design and build a completely new car.

This is all theories, speculation, guesswork, smoke and mirrors because we don't have the full facts. The FIA hearing on the 26th July may help in this respect, but there's still the Ferrari case against Stepney, and that may take a lot longer to resolve.

I'd love to see how this thread would have gone if it was Ferrari receiving McLaren documents and not the other way around.

I reckon the peasants would have well and truly revolted by now! :D

Hey!! why you calling me peasant?? You think I don't eat dim sim?? I very sophisticated land worker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hawkmoon

I'd love to see how this thread would have gone if it was Ferrari receiving McLaren documents and not the other way around.

I reckon the peasants would have well and truly revolted by now! :D

---

Oh there is plenty enough revolting to go round for everyone ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

---

"What if" is not a legal argument.

Again, the problem with your argument is that you seem to be forgetting that the court will judge if it is beyond reasonable doubt that Stepney is the man responsible.

It is not beyond reasonable doubt that Stepney has had a motive and an opportunity to do exactly what he is accused of.

In all legal systems, Motive and Opportunity are two of the major factors in deciding the innocence or guilt of the accused. They are currently not on Stepney's side.

Against that, and in the case of Stepney's defence, it is quite far fetched to believe that Ferrari would go to such elaborate, complicated and implausible lengths to set him up in this way.....it would have been much easier to put him on gardening leave.

Stepneys defence of claiming a 'conspiracy' against him is a very poor defence and one which the accused would have to provide evidence for whilst maintaining his integrity as a witness....something that, given his far-fetched claims so far and his on-record unhappiness regarding his position at Ferrari, is not easy to do.

The number of witness statements stating a different version of events make it even harder to accept his version.

The court, or the panel if it's the Sports authority, will have to give credence to the most believable version of events......which, at the moment, doesn't appear to be Stepney's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

True, but as Valve says, the thief is still presumed innocent in law until proven guilty in a court of law. Of course cases are unlikely to get as far as a trail if there is little or no evidence to support the charge.

Stepneygate is far from a simple 'possession of stolen goods' case.

Who sent 'the document' to Coughlan? - Stepney is accused but says he didn't, so if he didn't who did and why? What if it was sent by a loyal Ferrari employee to discredit Stepney, and damage McLaren at the same time? If that was the case then this whole situation would be seen in a very different light.

Other than photocopying 'the document' what did Coughlan do with it? Was it his intention to take it to Honda? If so why make other McLaren staff aware of it? Did he just make them aware of it and was told to destroy it, or did he make use of it to benefit McLaren? If so, how exactly? If so were his actions condoned by McLaren management?

Is this just a simple case of two men wanting to change jobs, and take their knowledge with them? Something similar happened in 1977 when members of the Shadow team planned to split away and create another GP team. The designer took his designs for the 1978 Shadow and made an Arrows instead, but a judge decided the designs belonged to Shadow so Arrows were made to design and build a completely new car.

This is all theories, speculation, guesswork, smoke and mirrors because we don't have the full facts. The FIA hearing on the 26th July may help in this respect, but there's still the Ferrari case against Stepney, and that may take a lot longer to resolve.

---

The big question is whether this will really get to the bottom or it will be stopped somewhere along the way by some kind of agreement among parties, and in that case we'll never get to know what happened.