Floppy disks? Paper copies? Strange
how there seem to be such outdated practices involved in these recent cases. Renault is in deep trouble, that much is clear, and I can foresee a situation where the company would rather just supply engines to the sport than run its namesake team. In the 2011 suggestions, there's a bit that would allow the exchange of technical information between the teams within the sport to a clearly defined degree. We'd obviously need such an addition to the sporting regulations now, or better yet, yesterday.
It's a bit funny and a bit sad to see how much some people (even journalists) still smart over the McLaren spy decisions and thus
are willing to jump to equally ill adviced conclusions, processes and solutions out of spite for the precedent! There's just little to no logic there and
not judging the Renault case by its own merits will only harm the sport further. If the "original" spy case wasn't handled wisely (and there are too many opinions about this for me to specify here why and how I agree or disagree with that blanket statement, see the original thread if interested) are we not to learn from those mistakes to get a form of revenge on the whole sport collectively?
Some are also quick to say that this is an entirely comparable case. We know too little of this to date to say that. Heck, we know too little of the "original" case to know that (and you can read something into my opinions in that statement alone). At least there doesn't seem to have been a person at McLaren who would've fed Renault every setup and tactical decision McLaren took in testing and race weekends and who would've kept them up to date about developments. Also it's really simplistic to say that Renault merits a $100M fine as it was clearly stated in the transcripts that the amount was in some proportion to McLaren's financial capabilities. One would expect then, that if the deed is comparable, the sum should still be different.
I wasn't born yesterday, so I'm fully aware that some might hope that demanding the exact same process and outcome that McLaren received might force a change in the leadership of the sport, or an unprecedented reconsideration of McLarens treatment. The first option is within the realm of possibilities and given the possible repercussions of continuing down the trodden path, perhaps even advisable. But you'd better not believe that this can be achieved by demanding a fine of $100M for Renault, because that's what McLaren "got" and it's "unthinkable". If you believe that the FIA won't do that, you may be playing chicken with the wrong people.
More importantly, if you believe there was injustice in the "original" punishment (and again, I can't go into how I might agree or disagree with anyone on this here) - well, two wrongs won't make it right (or just). Despite personal preferences and dislikes.
Perhaps it's worth noting that from the very beginning of the Mclaren-Ferrari case, for my insignificant part I advocated transparency, closure and leniency. There were many who did the same, sooner or later. My approach and standpoint to this new case isn't any different to the "original" one. So if someone didn't advocate the stripping of Mclaren's points and a fine of $100M, but does so now, I'm at least intrigued as to how such a change in mind has come about and whether the perceived outcome from repeating that is just, positive, or negative?
There's a pretty good article about this, and the way forward, in the Telegraph:
Bernie Ecclestone holds crisis meeting - link, article by Kevin Garside ... worth a read, and will give food for thought.
