The infamous 'spy gate' that began during the 2007 season is now one step closer to being closed for good, with a court hearing in Modena, Italy, dropping charges against the McLaren employees. The employees involved being McLaren chief designer Mike Coughlan and senior employees Paddy Lowe, Jonathan Neale and Rob Taylor.
I can assure you that I'm not a Ferrari Fanboy. I read Ron's Letter and he was clearly NOT fair and balanced in his appraisal of Ferrari's actions. I didn't take a bunch of time out to perfect my responses, but that's because it really got me bothered that Ron drops the word ILLEGAL every time he talks about the Ferrari. I'm sorry, but Ron has no authority to deem a car illegal, only Charlie does, and only AFTER the rules were changed did the movable floor become illegal.Furthermore this is addressed to Ginsu wow do you expect people to take you seriously by posting such a deriding and bile laden response? Take of your red tinted glasses and read it like a reasonable adult. Sure not all of it makes sense but it is a hell of a lot more sensible than your posting.
Yes, I agree, that's what makes this case so interesting and difficult to pass judgement on. If the rule clarification were all that happened then maybe all would be well, but much more information was passed between Coughlan and Stepney and we simply aren't getting the whole story of why that occured, I'm sure.If someone calls another team and tells them about a team's (any team's) cheating or suspicious devices no 'crime' has been committed by the recipient. If they then use this knowledge to protest about the device again no crime has been committed.
The possession of intellectual property, as Coulghan had later on, is confined specifically to documents, not mere knowledge of something. The basic reason for this is you can't prove or disprove of anyone knowing or not knowing something in their head.
Yeah, I agree... I'm not sure what the outcome could be. McLaren were already found guilty. They original committee decided against punishing them. The appeals court cannot 'force' a punishment in a sport which already has it's own complaints and internal 'legal' procedure system. (just imagine if a court could rule, for example, that a soccer referee got a call wrong and changed the score in a game already held!!).wunderkind wrote:I dont think the International Court of Appeals will deliver a different verdict to the one handed down by the FIA special session last Thursday.
wunderkind wrote:However, if the International Court of Appeals does hand down a judgement in Ferrari's favour. It risks inflicting permanent damage on the FIA's authority in governing the sport.
I have no idea where you 2 got that from, but the FIA court of appeal was established under the FIA Statutes and the FIA’s International Sporting Code. It is the FIA, and so cannot damage its governance.Rob W wrote:The appeals court cannot 'force' a punishment in a sport which already has it's own complaints and internal 'legal' procedure system. (just imagine if a court could rule, for example, that a soccer referee got a call wrong and changed the score in a game already held!!).
That's a little bit far-reaching in my opinion. Ferrari is dealing with this matter since March, it's August now. In the mean time it managed to bounce back, even if it doesn't show in the standings, from the poor showings of Monaco and the NA tour. One must also remember that this is the first year without MS and RB, and so I think they are doing relatively good. At least better then you would expect about 10 months ago. I think they have managed to show that they have a good basic structure there.wunderkind wrote:I also think it is in Ferrari's best interest to seek a dignified closure to the matter. This whole saga has a very real potential to tear the Ferrari F1 team apart. This whole thing is becoming such a distraction to the team that they will take their eyes off the ball and performance will suffer. The longer it drags on, the worse its going to become for ferrari. The terrible years of mutual detestation and factional rivalry among the senior hierarchy of the pre-di Montezemolo era will return and it will take Ferrari years to recover.
I dont think Ross Brawn would consider returning to Ferrari in 2008 given the current atmosphere of bitterness and recrimination.
Of course - Charlie Whiting tipped Mclarencheckered wrote:Stepney says he didn't tip off McLaren (link, autosport.com)
Hmmm ... any ideas where this is going?
Did you hear that, Mr. Ron Dennis?We need to clear up this situation. If it really happened then people must be punished for two reasons. First because this way it won't happen again, so a mechanic, before passing certain information, will think 27 times about it. And then because we can't be the judges and pay people inside a team to tell you what's illegal. This is a job for the federation, which must set some clear rules.
Angus,theblackangus wrote: If Ferrari is try to gain advantage by going against the spirit of the rules intentionally, what does that make them?
Ron did something gentlemanly. He didnt drag another team in the mud to get done what needed to be done. He did it quietly and respectfully.
Are you saying that Ferrari should be going against the spirit of the rules? And that they deserve that advantage because they were trying to be sneaky and hide it?
I dunno but it seems that Ron choose the path that let everyone off nicely.
Sorry, my post was very ambiguous in meaning. I agree with your point. I was kind of making the point that the appeal court is the same people as the original panel. They're not likely to overrule themselves in their punishment... (In general law an appeal panel/court/bench is made up of a different set of judges for the specific reason to remove a judge's pride in upholding a previous position - however wrong/right it may be)FLC wrote:I have no idea where you 2 got that from, but the FIA court of appeal was established under the FIA Statutes and the FIA’s International Sporting Code. It is the FIA, and so cannot damage its governance...
Also, the example given about the soccer referee is somewhat misleading. The FIA isn't going to change the outcome of the races....
I'm sorry mate, but you're wrong again. I hope I'm not being too meticulous, but I think this is a fundamental point to understand. If you would care to check the FIA official site you will find that the rules of the FIA international court of appeal explicitly indicates in article 4 of chapter 2 that "no member of the World Motor Sport Council or of the Sporting Commissions of the FIA may be a member of the ICA and vice versa".Rob W wrote: I was kind of making the point that the appeal court is the same people as the original panel. They're not likely to overrule themselves in their punishment... (In general law an appeal panel/court/bench is made up of a different set of judges for the specific reason to remove a judge's pride in upholding a previous position - however wrong/right it may be)
You know what? I think Ferrari would spend lots of dollars and effort regardless of the outcome the expect.FLC wrote:As I said over and over again, Ferrari would not spend one dollar on this appeal, if they didn't think there was a reasonable chance to change the outcome. It is not a one man company who operates according to political caprices. Jean Todt is subject to the decisions of the board members, which I brought here before, a few pages back.
- Ross Brawn has actually said very little really; you can't read much into what he is saying..........in fact probably as much into what he is not saying (I'm not implying he is dishonest - just too smart to burn bridges that don't need burning).