mcdenife wrote: The standard yes. but what standard is this? Clarify why Mclaren was fined $100m, ie what reason did the WMSC give? because that should the standard (or the precedent).
Is this where
you started asking questions from me about the Renault/McLaren thing? I think so, correct me if I’m wrong ... I had to go back since I couldn’t remember anymore and I needed some perspective to all this. Now, I hope it’s not for the lack of my effort you’re still probing my opinions about (lacking a better expression) “all this”.
mcdenife wrote: The relevance of PdL's testimony in this context? well you stated his testimony showed "beyond a doubt" his team did not come clean.
...
It didn't.
Even so, suspicion of not coming clean and proof of not coming clean are 2 different things.Yes his testimony did not change the published content of the [his & FA's] txt msgs, but that was besides the point of his testimony. What was the point was your so called "confirmed trail". His testimony raised questions and cast very reasonable doubt on this "confirmed trail".
In fact you could say their punishment hinged mainly on this testimony because not much else was added from the initial case. Who can forget Max's dramatic revelation of the 'smoking gun' in the form of a couple hundred messages between Mike C and Nigel. According to Max this proved Mclaren may not have come clean and warranted a second hearing.
The context, for me, in this thread is still Renault’s case. Insofar as testimony is concerned, I consider the drivers’ written submissions testimony too. Especially as not every driver was on hand to clarify what they had made public. Though I must admit I’m losing the plot here somewhat: Are we supposed to deal with how I am wrong about someone being wrong (or being portrayed wrongly) about a thing that was wrong to begin with? I’m struggling with the rationale behind this exchange, for I’m still only interested in what is a prudent and measured approach to comparing McLaren’s and Renault’s “cases”.
And c’mon, if instilling only reasonable doubt is what a witness is shooting for in a hearing, that alone is pretty telling about where he’s coming from to begin with. As far as defences go, that’s the minimum standard. And when it came to de la Rosa’s questioning, it was established he didn’t challenge the written submissions about the text messages. Pedro did tell the hearing in no uncertain terms that since 22nd of March he was aware that Coughlan was receiving and could forward to him
confidential Ferrari technical and setup information. (In the transcript there’s a misuderstanding about the date that remains unexplained, but it’s not significant) He was very careful in stating that he didn’t give the info to other McLaren engineers, only Alonso but it hardly matters whether he did or didn’t after admitting to the above. The team under the current rules is collectively responsible.
De la Rosa also freely testified about the discussions between him, Coughlan and Alonso about the weight distribution, tyre gas and brake bias systems. Not even an attempt to hide that. His claim that at some point he thought that Stepney was an ex-Ferrari chief mechanic is mind boggling, but even that doesn’t matter since he actually wasn’t. When pressed about the fact that he must’ve known this was wrong and yet he did nothing about it, he just retorts: “I did nothing about it.” He does claim to know the when McLaren started to work on the brake bias system, conveniently before Coughlan informed him of a Ferrari system achieving the same effect.
Furthermore de la Rosa states that he conveyed every last bit of information to Alonso, whether Pedro understood it himself or not. A driver. To another. What’s the big idea? Two drivers, pressed for time, handing each other information for months on end, information that they don’t understand, surrounded by people who can. And there’s a lot more, but again, what’s this got to do with Renault? But I’d say things appeared in a quite a different light than Coughlan just sitting on a pile of papers minding his own business. Almost none of the above had come out in the first hearing.
mcdenife wrote: Neglecting the fact that
a) As the contents of the message were unknown, all this proved was that Mike C lied in HIS affidavit, given to a "proper" court while an acknowledged 'rogue agent'.
b) other than the timing of some of them, the messages revealed nothing else.
c) In effect all the FIA had were the messages between PdL and FA, discussing infomation which still bore no relevance to the 780 pages of docs found on Mike C but just proved that Mike C had a contact at 'Prancin Horse' who may or may not have provided the answers to FA's query.
d) That contact between Mike and Nigel was not in fact the issue (this was already established at the first hearing), but those 780 pages of docs and use thereof by Mclaren.
The content is very well known, if not word for word. Much due to the drivers’ testimony. Yes, the contact was very well established, and of course it became an issue as it was revealed that at least part of the messages had contained information about Ferrari’s race tactics. If that isn’t a sporting offence, I don’t know what is.
mcdenife wrote: An aside: There is something obviously and dodgily glaring in all this, Nigel is currently under investigation for Sabotage but not for Theft, why not?
As already stated, Mclaren were punished for something Renault admitted despite it not being proven (in Mclarens case). Hence the cries of double standards.
...
Yes I ask, yes all of this was established in the first hearing and yes it is commonplace legal principle.... etc etc, the question was (or should have been) what was added or established at the 2nd hearing to warrant $100m fine. Max's 'smokin gun' did not warrant a 2nd hearing let alone a fine. In fact if indeed it was 'The smoking gun', why didnt Max simply let this all come out at the pending ( an cancelled) appeal? After all the basis of the appeal was that 'Prancin Horse' claimed they did not have their say and could have added more if they had.( infact this is the question everyone should be asking)
I don’t know what everyone is being investigated for by the police. As for now, Renault’s case doesn’t seem even remotely the same even if it falls under the same general category with regard to the documents. It’s totally superfluous to rant about the amount of the fine. WMSC’s deliberations on that haven’t been released and I can’t and won’t defend them on that – that’s their job if they deem it necessary. But the Renault analogies seem weak indeed, at least in the sporting sense, which is what the WMSC considers. The first hearings of McLaren and Renault are very consistent, though.
mcdenife wrote: True. So should they then be fined for "suspicion of not coming clean of breaking the rules" even if there is no evidence or proof?
Things can be logically established from all kinds of things. Unfortunately enough for McLaren, facts weren’t in short supply about their employee’s doings. Could the system be better? Yes. Could things have ended differently? Yes. Does Renault need to be kicked around to prove otherwise? No. They deserve to be treated by the merits of their own behaviour as well.
