Mosley sends spying case to court of appeal

WOw!

 

If the Appeals hearing confirms that McLaren did not utilize the information, will the whining stop on these boards, I wonder?

 

maybe, but what if it does show something?

 

Then McLaren should suffer the consequences IF it is shown that they did in fact use that information. The problem is that it has not been proven to be the case. Everyone's arguments here rely solely on conjecture and hearsay, not that this slows down anyone...

My point is that if they confirm the FIA's original decision, would that shut people up on here? Probably not.

 

"The McLaren apologists' red herring." Once again, that has nothing to do with the crime, infraction or sullied image that F1 has been left with. No better than mfrs of oriental knock-off designer hand bags? It has nothing to do with the injury that Ferrari has been dealt. The FIA needs to send a strong message to teams and members, that this conduct will absolutely not be tolerated.

Does it mean you'll stop your incessant whining, crying, kicking and screaming tantrums, if they decide to penalize McLaren?

 

...then big MOSS is letting Ferrari appeal?...and Bernie was just saying to Jean Todt to leave it as is...

I guess the appeal might bring them some sort of FINE, they had enough to punish them and they didnt... but I dont see points docking unless something more...how can I put it...TANGIBLE comes out into the light, like a McLiaren wing exact in shape and blue prints or something like that...although IN MY OPINION all the stated and stablished as official TRUE was WAY SOLID ENOUGH to have them penalized...

Otherwise, we´re screwed.

Cant wait for Hungary, and crunch those McLiarens on track...

Like one fellow chatter put it...the statement should be this: even when they are spying us, we are Faster

 

I guess you missed Dave's message about insulting posts...

Once again, you are assuming that all your hypotheses are correct. Once again, none of that has been PROVEN other than that Coughlan possessed the information. This supposed damage to Ferrari is assumed by you and is not born out by any publicly made information, it is speculation and ONLY speculation.

I am not, and have never been, a McLaren apologist. I, and many others here, have simply chosen NOT to bury our heads in the sand and rely on what is KNOWN and not what is THEORIZED or HYPOTHESIZED or SPECULATED or DREAMT UP by individuals who are blinded by their hatred of McLaren. I don't really care about McLaren but what I do care about is that fundamental fairness is utilized on this process and not simply rantings and ravings by individuals who have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the truth is nor have any inclination to listen to it once it is known.

If McLaren is SHOWN to have used that information and if it is PROVEN that they have lied, then they should suffer the full penalties. Until that happens, then I will rely on objectivity, reason, logic, fairness, and most importantly FACTS and not your rantings.

 

The problem is, Mosley doesn't send it to court of appeal because he thinks MCL needs to be punished, he sends it there because he wants MCL to be found 'not guilty' even in respect of the 151c issue they've already been convicted...

 

Where did you read this? According to the article, Moseley's decision was in response to a request from the Italian Auto Federation's President. It seems to be driven by the complaints that Ferrari was not able to present evidence at the first hearing. It seems to me that his intent is to ensure that everyone is satisfied that a full and fair hearing is given to all parties and that the decision is seen as appropriate.


"Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered," wrote Mosley in the letter.

"Because of this and the importance of public confidence in the outcome, I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal under article 23.1 of the FIA Statues with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not, substitute such other decision as may be just."

 

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/formel1/0,1518,497514,00.html
It's in German. Key sentence is:

Mosley will vor das Berufungsgericht des Automobil-Weltverbandes (Fia) ziehen, um die Entscheidung bestätigen zu lassen und das Silberpfeil-Team zu entlasten
which translates to:

Mosley wants to send the case to court of appeal of the FIA to see the decision confirmed and to exculpate MCL.

 

Although i do see your point of view regarding certain things, your logic deeply based on "facts", "proof"...things that can be referenced somehow, can be very limiting in and of itself. While some here may 'speculate' or 'dream up' aspects of this matter, as you put it, the nature of F1 and the politics involved will never be able to provide you with every single "fact", "proof", you so need before you draw any form of conclusion (much in life cannot give ultimate 'proof'). "Facts" "proof", aren't always absolute and can be manipulated as well. What if i can manipulate, and 'prove' somehow that the 'proof' isn't the same thing you saw it as? In the world of F1 and its politics, a lot of 'fact' can be shaped into whichever way that will benefit whomever desires. Fact and proof represent different things in the court of law as well--compounded by technicalities, do they not--where there are no meeting of minds in what those things really mean? Read: OJ Simpson. And yes, you already have formed your own conclusion...that McLonk didn't do anything wrong simply because it can't be "shown", "proven" that they did...there are no "facts" to support the theory that they 'used' the Ferrari information. You are not actually being neutral while others "bury their heads in the sand". Here's the rub...there are A LOT of things in life which hold true whether or not "facts", "proof" are sufficient or even exist in a way we can easily 'measure' or reference. Sometimes we can KNOW FOR SURE without the type of 'proof' you speak of. This is not a matter of philosophy, or theological debate. Even sometimes, 'whining' and speculating despite no "proof" can actually lead to other revelations. Scandals often start as groundless speculation. You talk of 'common sense', 'logic', in your arguments, yet you fail to take into account other aspects contained within that 'common sense' and 'logic'. Just because some F-chatters cannot 'prove' that McL used the info, are the Chatters idiots if their 'common sense' tells them McL most likely did in some way (based on reading inbetween the lines despite no 'proof'). Of course, who/what exactly are you expecting to bring you the "facts", "proof"? The FIA? The courts? What if it is beyond them? Do we just say 'darn, guess we'll never know' and refrain from drawing any conclusions? Geesh, i sure wouldn't want to live my life requiring absolute "proof" for every single thing i embrace and believe in. Am i an idiot if i speak my mind based on my own intuition and logic, in the ab'sense' of "proof"?

 

Be able to tell BOTH (and all) sides????

What kind of a hearing is that?

Sounds too fair to be an FIA hearing.

Much better when you only hear one side. Easier not to be confused by all the facts.

Maybe the kangaroo will have to go back in the zoo.

 

They should try and put a Ferrari wing on the McLaren and if the wing doesn't fit, they must acquit...

 

The issue for me is, I understand both sides of this situation. The ruling from the WMSC last week basically said that McLaren was guilty of violating rule 151c because Coughlan was in possession of the documents and he has a significant role on the team. That alone did not establish that McLaren utilized the information in any way to benefit the team through the pilfered Ferrari information. The FIA/WMSC's ruling indicates that they believe only Coughlan was in possession of the information. I can see that being a just decision (don't penalize the team because of a 'rogue' employee)

Ferrari's position makes a lot of sense also. They're saying a) that McLaren used the information in a way to penalize them for their chassis design wrt the floorboard. Regardless if it was a request for a rules clarification, this illustrated that McLaren was able to utilize the stolen information to their indirect advantage. The bigger issue b) is that McLaren would not have acknowledged they had the information if not for Ferrari busting Stepney. Since other people throughout the organization apparently were aware of the possession, then that makes the whole organization guilty for spying. I believe that is a fair assessment, IMO. They are seeking a penalty so that this doesn't create a precedent where teams have a "dedicated scapegoat" that allows them to operate outside of the sporting regulations with little fear of consequence.

I still say penalize the team, but leave the drivers' points alone. The McLaren car is not at issue, it's the management and their integrity that should be dealt with.

 

He also misses the point that this is a chat site where people discuss things and speculate. If he wants all facts with no speculation, stick to f1.com. No disrespect intended.

 

McLaren not amused:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=32289

See how they do the same thing as Ferrari? Ferrari suddenly called McLaren not just that but Vodafone M-B etc.
McLaren says Stephney is a member of Ferrari and Coughlan is an employee of McL. Subtle.

 

That´s what I mean!...if they dont find something JUST LIKE THAT they wont touch them...something absurdly obvious, or look alike to the milimeter they wont touch them...

I hate to think there will be no punishment either, BUT from what the FIA has done, and how they reacted I dont think that anything else will make them earn the very deserved punishment...just like BRIATORE said, I wish I knew what weight distribution they are using...just knowing something that basic will help illegaly...

the no punishment is just RIDICULOUS, the hard proof was having the INFO and getting CAUGHT with it...

Is just a way to keep the business going...for McLiaren

 

Good post, Scuderia.

To answer your question, in this case it is important to recognize that a serious charge is being levelled, that McLaren knowingly took stolen information and used it for their own purpose. If you are going to level such a charge against someone, you had better damn sure be able to prove it. Facts, in this instance, are absolute.

McLaren, for their part, provided detailed information on the design process of their cars to the FIA to demonstrate that no Ferrari IP was on the car. This is a fact.

The "proof" that people have been proferring of McLaren's guilt is nothing more than hearsay and speculation. Fortunately most courts of law and forums for dispute resolution require a higher standard of evidence than that.

We can sit here and speculate on what McLaren did or did not do with that info but what possible good can it do to anyone if the ruling authorities can arbitralily decide by fiat that a party is guilty of something simply on the basis of accusations and speculation.

Put it another way, what if I accused you of being a child molester. Should I not be required to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before you receive punishment? Are you not damaged by folks repeating groundless accusations against you simply because you once babysat a kid?

I am not arguing for absolute certainty in the McLaren case but what I am arguing for is SOME proof of McLaren duplicity beyond ridiculous rantings and idle speculation. Thus far we have seen absolutely NOTHING.

Of course not, so long as you make it clear that you are expressing an opinion. Some of the folks here are taking speculation and declaring it fact.

 

No, what I want is that speculation be recognized as such. Some folks here are having a difficult time understanding that.

 

Others here have already discussed Spiegel and its reliability as a news source.

I think Moseley's letter speaks for itself and I am sure Ferrari is pleased with his decision.

 

Oh come on now. This is naive in the extreme. There is no doubt that they have utilised information passed on to Coughlin, otherwise how on earth did the flexi-floor issue EVER arise?

If they saw fit to use this little snippet do you think they ignored Ferrari's entire blueprint selection and operation procedures?

Dennis denials' and the Firewall at Mclaren but not at Coughlin's home as well as the agreement suggested by Dennis to Todt when he ALREADY knew what was going on is all classic arse covering.

His tears though the week before the hearing regarding his integrity and name etc., is just plain sickening.

 

if only I had the time to debunk this one,

 

incredible coincidence ??

RD just knew the floorboards were flexing the OTHER way because he is so smart

well the apologists would have you believe that because you CAN'T PROVE IT BEYOND A DOUBT

IAW unless YOU personally saw Stepney hand the information to Coughlan and then him telling RD who would NEVER ask where he got the information it CAN'T be true

Why don't they ask Ron baby why he was asking for a 'clarification' on the floorboards ?

I could understand the bargeboard issue as it was in plain sight but floorboards ?? come on give me a break, insider trading

 

I am not denying that the floorboard info was passed to Coughlan or that McLaren requested clarification on the rule. The FIA is aware of that information too. It was presented at the hearing and the FIA determined that what mClaren did was not illegal. However that is not what I have been talking about. The issue at hand is the 780 pages of documents.

However, I am not prepared to accept the second part of your premise as anything but speculation. I don't know if they used the 780 pages but neither do you. But I do know they claimed they have not and offered up all the technical information on the car to prove it. What evidence do you have, other than your own speculation, that this is not true?

Thus far, the only side of this debate to offer up any evidence whatsoever is McLaren. You certainly have not, other than your connect-the-dots suppositions and speculations. You will have to excuse me if I find this insufficient.

As apparently does the FIA as well...