FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Martin]

Only justification I can think of is that it's to decide how guilty he is.

Yes, I know that sounds crazy.

I must say that that does sound crazy to me. Its like saying that a lady is only slightly pregnant.

Stepney cannot have slightly passed data to Coughlan, he did or he didn't. We already know that he did not have authority to do it. McL have been done for possession of this data, so it was passed on. Its clear that there are no shades of grey here.
As I said before, if there are any shades of grey, then the McL penalty is invalid.

Lets make some guesses, what could be mitigating circumstances for Stepney?
1. a mental health issue? Didn't know what he was doing! - this might work but there has been no suggestion of this so far has there?
2. Todt encouraged Stepney to do this in order to discredit McL. Possible I suppose but unlikely. If this was the case then it would get McL. off the hook.
3. That Coughlan stole the data from Stepney. There seems to be no doubt that the source of data from Ferrari was Stepney, so Stepney could use that defence.

I think that all of the mitigating circumstances above are extremely unlikely. Anything else would destroy the case against McL. Anyone else got ideas on what defences Stepney could use?

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren was not punished for stealing the info (remember the first meeting's decision?). But rather for using the illegally obtained info and not dealing with the situation correctly and not volunteering information about who knew and used the info.
So don't compare apples with oranges.

Well, the FIA said they could not prove anything was used on the MP4-22, although some was probably incorporated into the MP4-23. I can't agree with your second sentence at all, however. Imagine the situation McLaren were in: spying happens in Formula One anyway,you don't know the full facts of the matter, you're not best buddies with the FIA, and the WMSC has an inbuilt Ferrari bias. So, basically, the sport's government, police and judiciary are against you. Would you volunteer information in that case? Unlikely.

Why is M.M. allowing this charade of Stepney being given the chance to defend himself? This should have been done before any case against McL. The verdict HAS to be guilty so whats all this bollocks about Max?

To give the case some air of professionalism, despite inconsistency and after inconsistency and victimisation techniques.

Only justification I can think of is that it's to decide how guilty he is.

Yes, I know that sounds crazy.

I must say that that does sound crazy to me. Its like saying that a lady is only slightly pregnant.

Stepney cannot have slightly passed data to Coughlan, he did or he didn't. We already know that he did not have authority to do it. McL have been done for possession of this data, so it was passed on. Its clear that there are no shades of grey here.
As I said before, if there are any shades of grey, then the McL penalty is invalid.

Lets make some guesses, what could be mitigating circumstances for Stepney?
1. a mental health issue? Didn't know what he was doing! - this might work but there has been no suggestion of this so far has there?
2. Todt encouraged Stepney to do this in order to discredit McL. Possible I suppose but unlikely. If this was the case then it would get McL. off the hook.
3. That Coughlan stole the data from Stepney. There seems to be no doubt that the source of data from Ferrari was Stepney, so Stepney could use that defence.

I think that all of the mitigating circumstances above are extremely unlikely. Anything else would destroy the case against McL. Anyone else got ideas on what defences Stepney could use?

Stepney said once that he was stitched up, certainly for the alleged sabotage at the Monaco Grand Prix. He says that once Brawn left the team, Ferrari changed his job description and he was really not happy about this. With his complaining he managed to ruffle the feathers of the top brass and they decided to get back at him. But that doesn't hold much water because we know for a fact he was in contact with Coughlan. Ferrari weren't holding him at gunpoint to speak to Coughlan (although after rumours of the spy scandal become public, his house was watched and he had to flee as a result).

[texasmr2]

Wow Ferrari on top of having the FIA's bias now has the WMSC's? Ferrari has already clinched the '08 WDC and WCC so everyone get's a year off !

[McLaren Fan]

Wow Ferrari on top of having the FIA's bias now has the WMSC's? Ferrari has already clinched the '08 WDC and WCC so everyone get's a year off !

Eh, perhaps I've misunderstood you, but the WMSC is part of the FIA insofar as they do the voting on whatever issue is before them, i.e. in the spy scandal, they were basically the jury. As for Ferrari next season, well they have $100,000,000 head start (not including what other money McLaren lost through having no constructors' points) and the FIA are their mates, so they should easily win.

[texasmr2]

Sarcasm was my intent nothing more.

[darwin dali]

Wow Ferrari on top of having the FIA's bias now has the WMSC's? Ferrari has already clinched the '08 WDC and WCC so everyone get's a year off !

Eh, perhaps I've misunderstood you, but the WMSC is part of the FIA insofar as they do the voting on whatever issue is before them, i.e. in the spy scandal, they were basically the jury. As for Ferrari next season, well they have $100,000,000 head start (not including what other money McLaren lost through having no constructors' points) and the FIA are their mates, so they should easily win.

Wrong, the TV money based on constructors' points will be deducted from the $100m fine, so it's just about $50m or even less that they have to fork over.

[darwin dali]

McLaren was not punished for stealing the info (remember the first meeting's decision?). But rather for using the illegally obtained info and not dealing with the situation correctly and not volunteering information about who knew and used the info.
So don't compare apples with oranges.

Well, the FIA said they could not prove anything was used on the MP4-22, although some was probably incorporated into the MP4-23. I can't agree with your second sentence at all, however. Imagine the situation McLaren were in: spying happens in Formula One anyway,you don't know the full facts of the matter, you're not best buddies with the FIA, and the WMSC has an inbuilt Ferrari bias. So, basically, the sport's government, police and judiciary are against you. Would you volunteer information in that case? Unlikely.

Well, you may disagree with my sentence as much as you want, that's your prerogative. However, that was what irked the WMSC the most I believe, the way they had to extract information from McLaren/RD, how he wasn't forthcoming and only admitted wrong doing after it was clear he wouldn't have a leg on his previous professed position against the increasing evidence. Contrast that with how Renault handled their case. It all stopped for them at the same point where McLaren temporarily got off the hook (first WMSC meeting) because they layed out everything.

[McLaren Fan]

Well, you may disagree with my sentence as much as you want, that's your prerogative. However, that was what irked the WMSC the most I believe, the way they had to extract information from McLaren/RD, how he wasn't forthcoming and only admitted wrong doing after it was clear he wouldn't have a leg on his previous professed position against the increasing evidence. Contrast that with how Renault handled their case. It all stopped for them at the same point where McLaren temporarily got off the hook (first WMSC meeting) because they layed out everything.

Several things. First, a lot of the information presented at the end of the case was not known by the top brass at McLaren until just before the second hearing. Basically, Ron Dennis didn't know what was happening for snakes like Alonso, Coughlan and de la Rosa were operating without permission from the top. When the information did become know to Dennis, i.e. when Alonso tried his hand at blackmail, Dennis got straight onto Max Mosley and told him what was happening.

The Renault case was a sham. At the start, fraudster Flavio was denying all wrong doing and maintaining any data brought to the team was not used in their 2007 car which was a proven (which cannot be said of the McLaren case) and I suspect their 2008 car, but Mosley didn't think it fit to carry out an investigation there.

When people talk about events at McLaren they seem talk about McLaren as if everybody was involved in the spy scandal. The fact is several people out of several thousand people were involved in this sorry mess.

[AKR]

McLaren Fan wrote : The Renault case was a sham. At the start, fraudster Flavio was denying all wrong doing and maintaining any data brought to the team was not used in their 2007 car which was a proven (which cannot be said of the McLaren case) and I suspect their 2008 car, but Mosley didn't think it fit to carry out an investigation there. Rolling Eyes

Just a question to you McLaren Fan and all other McLaren supporters for that matter. Why would you of wanted to see Renault punished for this scandal back in 2006 against McLaren? Why? You do realise what the consequences would of been had McLaren succeded don't you? Let me perhaps enlighten you on the matter. In 2006 (Drivers title) Alonso came first and Michael Schumacher second. In the constructors title, Renault came first and Ferrari second. It would mean Alonso and Renault would of been stripped of their titles making the second place getters, Michael Schumacher and Ferrari the 2006 champions. Now tell me, why the F??? would you want that? If I were McLaren I wouldn't want to just happily give Ferrari (McLaren's sworn enemy) another "court room" win especially after Ferrari succeeded to get a court room win at the expense of McLaren for the 2007 Constructors title. Seriously how dumb can some people be? There is simply no logic here in a rivals point of view. Just don't do it unless it either benefits yourself (In this case McLaren) or you can benefit by knocking one back to your arch rival/enemy (In this case Ferrari).

Oh and one more thing. Had this of happened I wouldn't of been happy to take the title in that way off Renault since I don't mind Renault and I like Alonso. But for the 2007 title when it was taken off McLaren, that was a different story. Once again Thank God McLaren's claim against Renault failed.

[bud]

AKR it wasnt 2006 for the Renault case it had nothing to do with the R26 or the outcome of the 2006 title...whered you pull that from?

I think you should realise that McLaren only wanted clarification with the Renault case in testing the FIA over this issue of espionage in F1( its not like its a new occurance!) Renault were found guilty of breeching the same sporting code as McLaren but no punishment.

[darwin dali]

McLaren wasn't punished for violation of the sporting code either (see first WMSC meeting) even though they were found guilty.

[bud]

McLaren wasn't punished for violation of the sporting code either (see first WMSC meeting) even though they were found guilty.

Indeed after a unanimous vote but Ferrari and the FIA wouldnt let it rest... Ferrari wanted the title in the courtroom simple!
between the two hearins there was abit of a difference over some emails to 100 mil fine and losing constructor points. ich heil!!!

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren wasn't punished for violation of the sporting code either (see first WMSC meeting) even though they were found guilty.

You're missing out on one thing: it was proven Renault used McLaren data in their 2007 car. There was not a shred of evidence to say Ferrari data was used in the 2007 McLaren (although it seems some did make its way onto the 2008).

Just a question to you McLaren Fan and all other McLaren supporters for that matter. Why would you of wanted to see Renault punished for this scandal back in 2006 against McLaren? Why? You do realise what the consequences would of been had McLaren succeded don't you? Let me perhaps enlighten you on the matter. In 2006 (Drivers title) Alonso came first and Michael Schumacher second. In the constructors title, Renault came first and Ferrari second. It would mean Alonso and Renault would of been stripped of their titles making the second place getters, Michael Schumacher and Ferrari the 2006 champions. Now tell me, why the F??? would you want that? If I were McLaren I wouldn't want to just happily give Ferrari (McLaren's sworn enemy) another "court room" win especially after Ferrari succeeded to get a court room win at the expense of McLaren for the 2007 Constructors title. Seriously how dumb can some people be? There is simply no logic here in a rivals point of view. Just don't do it unless it either benefits yourself (In this case McLaren) or you can benefit by knocking one back to your arch rival/enemy (In this case Ferrari).

Oh and one more thing. Had this of happened I wouldn't of been happy to take the title in that way off Renault since I don't mind Renault and I like Alonso. But for the 2007 title when it was taken off McLaren, that was a different story. Once again Thank God McLaren's claim against Renault failed.

You see, that just shows how petty you are. You hate the McLaren more than you love Ferrari. I, on the other hand, love McLaren a lot more than I dislike Ferrari, and my primary concern is not doing something for the sake of annoying the Maranello mob.

The fact is Renault had McLaren parts on their car in 2007 and went unpunished and for all we know could have McLaren parts on their car in 2008, but Mosley only punishes and checks one team in particular. I wonder why...

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren wasn't punished for violation of the sporting code either (see first WMSC meeting) even though they were found guilty.

The way in which the evidence was gathered was inadmissible anyway, so even if McLaren were as guilty as sin, there is no way the case would stand up in any courtroom. That's Mosley's 'legal' mind for you. As I say, he changes role between a dictator and a lawyer when it suits his agenda.

[AKR]

Bud wrote : AKR it wasnt 2006 for the Renault case it had nothing to do with the R26 or the outcome of the 2006 title...whered you pull that from?

oops my mistake. Sorry. Even highly intelligent "Ferrari Warriors" like myself make blunders at times. I take the whole thing back as it was 2007. The statement I read about it is below. I obvoiusly didn't remember it well and someone how when I tried to remember it, changed the true meaning of it. Renault had MCLAREN'S 2006 and 2007 Technical Data not Renault tried to cheat in 2006. Someone how what happened in 2006 is what became confused when I tried to remember it. oops once again sorry and I take it back.


Here is part of the article how it should of been

McLaren had claimed that Renault had loaded their information into 11 computers in the team’s offices. The truth is that Phil Mackereth had made 11 copies of the McLaren data, there is no record of Renault having the copies on their servers except Phil’s folder.

Only 2 employees had seen the information on computer screens, one being Phil. Also McLaren have backtracked from their earlier allegations that Renault had 2006 and 2007 formula one car blueprints. They admitted that this claim would need investigation.