Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
Same difference, they both cheated and circumvented the rules. How Ferrari's designs documents ended up in Mclaren was not orchestrated by the team par se. it got into the team via an unscrupulous staff without the teams initial knowledge. So it is strong language to say they stole. The fact of the matter is we know the fine details of that event. We cannot say the same for the Ferrari engine infraction. So, in a sense, you cannot argue the difference between both cases cited.
But neither can you argue the similarity for the very same reason
I think there is a difference between cheating to gain an unfair advantage (like Ferrari seem to have done last year, or Tyrrell in 1984, or BAR in 2005) and doing that plus weakening another team at the same time. This is what McLaren did in 2007, because they didn't just use Ferrari's documents to improve their own performance, but also to protest the legality of the Ferrari car.

Again, I agree with you that Todt's FIA handled the Ferrari case very badly. I have never heard of an agreement between the governing body and a competitor that is additionally subject to a non-disclosure clause. It should have been brought before the WMSC. If the evidence had been enough to convict Ferrari, they would most likely have got a severe punishment along the lines you suggested. If there had been no substantial proof of Ferrari cheating, they should have been acquited "in dubio pro reo". That's what Mosley would have done, but as he writes in his autobiography, Todt is more risk-adverse.