FORUMula1.com

[LewEngBridewell]

I'll bring beer.

[LRW]

both should and will be found innocent.

BOOM!! Thats my opinion.

[racechick]

I think it should be that too. We'll find out about lunch time. That's the latest Ive heard.

[LRW]

Pete Gill (Sky Sports) has this to say this morning...

And so what should we make of Mercedes’ complaints that, if they are to be punished for running in ‘a Pirelli test’, then so too should Ferrari?

As I’m sure you are aware at this stage, it emerged in the post-Monaco furore that the Scuderia also participated in a test following April’s Bahrain GP. They were considered not to have contravened the rules because they ran a 2011 car. Rather unexpectedly, Mercedes challenged that judgement yesterday by declaring that the difference between the 2011 and 2013 cars were “miniscule”.

One striking element of the argument laid out by Paul Harris QC on behalf of Mercedes, and which has been heavily quoted this morning by The Guardian newspaper is that Ferrari ‘did their own thing’ during the test and also breached the terms of the commercial agreement Pirelli hold with the governing body, which reputedly permits up to 1000km of testing with every team.

"One can see from the run sheet that in the middle of the day they were doing their own thing," said Harris. "But they are not criticised. They also exceeded the 1,000km.
"Ferrari was even more involved in the actual testing than we were, they booked and paid for the circuit. They are not criticised."

"Ferrari were allowed to rely on a verbal confirmation from Pirelli that authorisation had been achieved but apparently we are condemned for this."

[racechick]

That Ferrari test was actually at Spain, just before the GP. On the track where theGP was about to be held.testing their own things. How did Ferrari do at Spain? I can't remember?

[LRW]

..... How did Ferrari do at Spain? I can't remember?

[Ferrari man 009]

Pete Gill (Sky Sports) has this to say this morning...

And so what should we make of Mercedes’ complaints that, if they are to be punished for running in ‘a Pirelli test’, then so too should Ferrari?

As I’m sure you are aware at this stage, it emerged in the post-Monaco furore that the Scuderia also participated in a test following April’s Bahrain GP. They were considered not to have contravened the rules because they ran a 2011 car. Rather unexpectedly, Mercedes challenged that judgement yesterday by declaring that the difference between the 2011 and 2013 cars were “miniscule”.

One striking element of the argument laid out by Paul Harris QC on behalf of Mercedes, and which has been heavily quoted this morning by The Guardian newspaper is that Ferrari ‘did their own thing’ during the test and also breached the terms of the commercial agreement Pirelli hold with the governing body, which reputedly permits up to 1000km of testing with every team.

"One can see from the run sheet that in the middle of the day they were doing their own thing," said Harris. "But they are not criticised. They also exceeded the 1,000km.
"Ferrari was even more involved in the actual testing than we were, they booked and paid for the circuit. They are not criticised."

"Ferrari were allowed to rely on a verbal confirmation from Pirelli that authorisation had been achieved but apparently we are condemned for this."

To me that sounds like Mercedes are saying "Were guilty but lets divert the courts attention from us by dragging another team into this mess"

Poor!

[LRW]

Pete Gill (Sky Sports) has this to say this morning...

And so what should we make of Mercedes’ complaints that, if they are to be punished for running in ‘a Pirelli test’, then so too should Ferrari?

As I’m sure you are aware at this stage, it emerged in the post-Monaco furore that the Scuderia also participated in a test following April’s Bahrain GP. They were considered not to have contravened the rules because they ran a 2011 car. Rather unexpectedly, Mercedes challenged that judgement yesterday by declaring that the difference between the 2011 and 2013 cars were “miniscule”.

One striking element of the argument laid out by Paul Harris QC on behalf of Mercedes, and which has been heavily quoted this morning by The Guardian newspaper is that Ferrari ‘did their own thing’ during the test and also breached the terms of the commercial agreement Pirelli hold with the governing body, which reputedly permits up to 1000km of testing with every team.

"One can see from the run sheet that in the middle of the day they were doing their own thing," said Harris. "But they are not criticised. They also exceeded the 1,000km.
"Ferrari was even more involved in the actual testing than we were, they booked and paid for the circuit. They are not criticised."

"Ferrari were allowed to rely on a verbal confirmation from Pirelli that authorisation had been achieved but apparently we are condemned for this."

To me that sounds like Mercedes are saying "Were guilty but lets divert the courts attention from us by dragging another team into this mess"

Poor!

I agree to a degree. But it could be seen as, a legal precedent has been set - (in their opinion) Ferrari have also carried out test, with as little authorisation as Mercedes, and are deemed inoccent - so if they are not being punished, Mercedes cannot be.

[racechick]

[Hammer278]

Pete Gill (Sky Sports) has this to say this morning...

And so what should we make of Mercedes’ complaints that, if they are to be punished for running in ‘a Pirelli test’, then so too should Ferrari?

As I’m sure you are aware at this stage, it emerged in the post-Monaco furore that the Scuderia also participated in a test following April’s Bahrain GP. They were considered not to have contravened the rules because they ran a 2011 car. Rather unexpectedly, Mercedes challenged that judgement yesterday by declaring that the difference between the 2011 and 2013 cars were “miniscule”.

One striking element of the argument laid out by Paul Harris QC on behalf of Mercedes, and which has been heavily quoted this morning by The Guardian newspaper is that Ferrari ‘did their own thing’ during the test and also breached the terms of the commercial agreement Pirelli hold with the governing body, which reputedly permits up to 1000km of testing with every team.

"One can see from the run sheet that in the middle of the day they were doing their own thing," said Harris. "But they are not criticised. They also exceeded the 1,000km.
"Ferrari was even more involved in the actual testing than we were, they booked and paid for the circuit. They are not criticised."

"Ferrari were allowed to rely on a verbal confirmation from Pirelli that authorisation had been achieved but apparently we are condemned for this."

To me that sounds like Mercedes are saying "Were guilty but lets divert the courts attention from us by dragging another team into this mess"

Poor!

No...they are saying "Ferrari had no case to answer to last year, so WHY SHOULD WE HAVE ONE?" No statement of "GUILTY" anywhere, that's in your mind.

[LRW]

Someone random on the sky sports feed has just made a very good point, regarding opinion on the tribunal, and how it has been carried out:

Reserving judgement on the Tribunal process until it's resolved. If we get a fully explained and justified ruling which shows a clear and consistent application of the rules as they are written then that's good. If it's just a 'X is deemed to have broken section Y of the rules and is fined Z' then we've not moved on since Max's day.

This I agree with. Even if the decision differs from what I want it to, I will be happy as long as there is a clear explanation on how they got to that decision. Transparency of the decision making process.

[What's Burning?]

In the US, the Supreme Court, with each ruling writes a paper doing just that. If there is a split vote which often there is the minority vote also puts forth the legal reasoning for the way they cast their vote. Don't know if this tribunal will do this but it's the only way to have transparency.