Hamilton V Schumacher

[janneppi]

This really is the Groundhog Thread, isn't it?
:p :

[PolePosition_1]

Utter rubbish.

Tamburello, posted the facts "N" times already, still you come with the same ol rubbish.
If the FIA wanted to go against McLaren than they would have imposed the initially mentioned 2 years ban.

Ioan, thats just my personal opinion. I look at past offences and punishments, and McLaren seem to be punished more toughly.

Its primarily down to inconsistancies within the FIA and Stewards way of punishing, but there is a tendency for McLaren to lose out in this.

[PolePosition_1]

Link please.

Just watch the Belgium GP from 2007 mate, Max Mosley made an actual press conference of it. I'm sure big news like that would have been broadcast to all pre-race coverage. I'm sure any ITV viewers will confirm this for you if you can't find a link :)


Your the first to mock someone for not knowing past facts (even from 1992 once and then you were embarrassingly corrected), yet sometimes I wonder if you've only tuned in last couple of races with the knowledge (or lack of) you show.

[ioan]

Just watch the Belgium GP from 2007 mate, Max Mosley made an actual press conference of it. I'm sure big news like that would have been broadcast to all pre-race coverage. I'm sure any ITV viewers will confirm this for you if you can't find a link :)


That doesn't cut it, you'll have to post a link, if it was a press conference there is also an article. Oh and it'd better be in English! :p : :D

[555-04Q2]

Ok people, if stats are not the measure and "comparable" drivers dont race in the same team/car or era, how do we compare them then :?: And please dont give me the usual crap about honour and integrity, teams look for drivers who can produce wins and championships, not saints.

McLaren, within a short period of time of being informed, offered to Ferrari and the FIA full access to physical and design documenation of current and future car to prove nothing had been used from the Ferrari plans. This was even before the first FIA meeting.

You have a funny knack of getting things back to front.

Do you have a link for this utter fabrication? Mclaren did not open their doors in the way Renault did. They did not offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in independent computer experts to study the Mclaren system

This is the link you provided earlier -

"On 16 July 2007, McLaren announced that its own internal investigation had revealed that "no Ferrari materials or data are or have ever been in the possession of any McLaren employee other than the individual sued by Ferrari. The fact that he held at his home unsolicited materials from Ferrari was not known to any other member of the team prior to July 3."

On 4 July 2007, McLaren announced it had conducted an investigation and concluded that "no Ferrari intellectual property has been passed to any other members of the team or incorporated into [our] cars." The team also invited the FIA to inspect its cars to confirm these facts; "In order to address some of the speculation McLaren has invited the FIA to conduct a full review of its cars to satisfy itself that the team has not benefited from any intellectual property of another competitor."[18] Since the revelation of Coughlan's involvement in the affair, McLaren provided a full set of drawings and development documents to the FIA, detailing all updates made to the team's chassis since the incident occurred at the end of April.[17}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Please tell me where in that is the evidence to support the idea that Mclaren matched Renaults co-operation?

Where in that is the offer to Ferrari send in an investigative independent expert as Renault did for Mclaren?

I'll save you looking....IT ISN'T THERE!!!

It is about time that you faced up to the fact that Mclaren management did no such thing as offer or cooperate in the manner which Renault management did.

Hence the huge but justified fine

Ioan, thats just my personal opinion. I look at past offences and punishments, and McLaren seem to be punished more toughly.

Its primarily down to inconsistancies within the FIA and Stewards way of punishing, but there is a tendency for McLaren to lose out in this.

Inconsistencies that mean Mclaren lose out?

"However, after the race McLaren were docked 10 points because an FIA seal was missing from Häkkinen's car. Häkkinen's points did count for the championship"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Austrian_Grand_Prix

Whereas.....

"Immediately after the race the two Ferrari's were disqualified due to an infringement on their barge-boards......However, Ferrari appealed against the FIA's decision in court and both drivers were subsequentely reinstated"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Malaysian_Grand_Prix

So Mclaren did not have to appeal, but Ferrari did.

How is that an example of Mclaren losing out in a decision by the FIA?

Not to mention this interesting piece of research....

http://ideas.repec.org/p/lmu/muenec/386.html

http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/386/1/MastromarcoRunkel.pdf

"During 1999-2002 there was a dominance of the Ferrari team which won the constructors' championship and also the drivers' championship (with the exception of 1999). Consistent with our analysis, the FIA implemented comprehensive rule changes at the beginning of the season 2003 and, even though Ferrari won the titles also in 2003, the championship in this season
was much more balanced.

So Ferrari dominance in the years 1999-2002 caused the FIA to change the rules, helping Mclaren amongst others.

Hardly the case, therefore, that Mclaren lose out.

[PolePosition_1]

Do you have a link for this utter fabrication? Mclaren did not open their doors in the way Renault did. They did not offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in independent computer experts to study the Mclaren system

This is the link you provided earlier -

"On 16 July 2007, McLaren announced that its own internal investigation had revealed that "no Ferrari materials or data are or have ever been in the possession of any McLaren employee other than the individual sued by Ferrari. The fact that he held at his home unsolicited materials from Ferrari was not known to any other member of the team prior to July 3."

On 4 July 2007, McLaren announced it had conducted an investigation and concluded that "no Ferrari intellectual property has been passed to any other members of the team or incorporated into [our] cars." The team also invited the FIA to inspect its cars to confirm these facts; "In order to address some of the speculation McLaren has invited the FIA to conduct a full review of its cars to satisfy itself that the team has not benefited from any intellectual property of another competitor."[18] Since the revelation of Coughlan's involvement in the affair, McLaren provided a full set of drawings and development documents to the FIA, detailing all updates made to the team's chassis since the incident occurred at the end of April.[17}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Please tell me where in that is the evidence to support the idea that Mclaren matched Renaults co-operation?

Where in that is the offer to Ferrari send in an investigative independent expert as Renault did for Mclaren?

I'll save you looking....IT ISN'T THERE!!!

It is about time that you faced up to the fact that Mclaren management did no such thing as offer or cooperate in the manner which Renault management did.

Hence the huge but justified fine

Wikipedia is your source :( . Does that mean I can use message board posts as a source?

Given the circumstances at the time did they not consider complying fully with the FIA during the course of that year?

Given that the issue is not "when they knew" but "how they reacted", then your question is largely besides the point.

"We summoned McLaren in front of the world council to explain about the dossiers and so on, and they swore that no one except Coughlan knew anything. I felt, as did one or two others on the world council, that although it was extremely suspicious, there wasn't enough evidence there to impose a penalty. So we didn't."

Then, however, the affair began to unravel, with the disclosure of telephone and email records indicating that the team had indeed made use of the information handed over by Stepney. "We found out that what they told us wasn't true. If, when Ron learnt about it, he had just called Jean Todt [of Ferrari] and said, 'Listen, you've got to know about Stepney,' we'd never even have heard about it"

"The next opportunity was when they got caught with all the documents, and he should have just come to the world council and said, 'Look, I'm really sorry, a few of my people know about it and I'm going to eradicate it.' There would have been a very modest fine and maybe [a deduction of] a few points at the most and it would all have been over."

"As the police say, we went where the evidence took us and we had no choice but to do that. If we'd swept it under the carpet or pretended it wasn't important I think everyone would have lost faith in our ability to regulate the sport."

Comparisons have been made, how-ever, between the harsh treatment of McLaren and that of Renault, who recently went unpunished after being accused of making use of technical secrets taken to the team by a former McLaren engineer. The ill-feeling that has long existed between Mosley and Dennis has been contrasted with the close business relationship shared by Flavio Briatore, Renault's team principal, and Ecclestone. Mosley, however, claims that Renault did not use the illegally acquired information to improve their car.

"In the case of Renault every single document and interview was sent to us, right from the beginning, in contrast to McLaren, where there was just a blank denial. And when all the dust settled, there were four drawings, that's all. There was no other evidence. The Renault case bears no relation at all to the McLaren case. But by carefully spinning it - well, actually, lying about it - they [McLaren] created the perception that it did."

"One can only say it's extremely improbable that Ron didn't know," Mosley said. "Every time I speak to him he still assures me that he would never tell a lie, that he never has told a lie and that he hasn't lied to us. When you've known somebody for 40 years it's very difficult just to say, 'Well, I don't believe you.' But in the end no hard-nosed lawyer or policeman would believe it for a moment. I'm probably being a bit of a wimp about it."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/dec/22/motorsports.sport?gusrc=rss&feed=sport

Wikipedia is your source :( . Does that mean I can use message board posts as a source?

Actually, it was Knock-On's source originally.

[PolePosition_1]

Inconsistencies that mean Mclaren lose out?

"However, after the race McLaren were docked 10 points because an FIA seal was missing from Häkkinen's car. Häkkinen's points did count for the championship"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Austrian_Grand_Prix

Whereas.....

"Immediately after the race the two Ferrari's were disqualified due to an infringement on their barge-boards......However, Ferrari appealed against the FIA's decision in court and both drivers were subsequentely reinstated"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Malaysian_Grand_Prix

So Mclaren did not have to appeal, but Ferrari did.

How is that an example of Mclaren losing out in a decision by the FIA?

Not to mention this interesting piece of research....

http://ideas.repec.org/p/lmu/muenec/386.html

http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/386/1/MastromarcoRunkel.pdf

"During 1999-2002 there was a dominance of the Ferrari team which won the constructors' championship and also the drivers' championship (with the exception of 1999). Consistent with our analysis, the FIA implemented comprehensive rule changes at the beginning of the season 2003 and, even though Ferrari won the titles also in 2003, the championship in this season
was much more balanced.

So Ferrari dominance in the years 1999-2002 caused the FIA to change the rules, helping Mclaren amongst others.

Hardly the case, therefore, that Mclaren lose out.

Again, Tamb, I'm not saying every case goes against McLaren, as you clearly have shown, many cases have gone for McLaren. I'm just saying the tendency.

Max Mosely said himself he believed Ron Dennis had told what he thought to be the truth from start to finnish.

Not according to the Guardian article I've just provided a link for.

[PolePosition_1]

Actually, it was Knock-On's source originally.

Lol ok, doesn't really matter who does it, same applies.

Knock On, wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

[ioan]

McLaren, within a short period of time of being informed, offered to Ferrari and the FIA full access to physical and design documenation of current and future car to prove nothing had been used from the Ferrari plans. This was even before the first FIA meeting.

What?
I suppose "a short period of time" means a few months to you. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

Not according to the Guardian article I've just provided a link for.

LOL, I'm still expecting PP1 to provide a link to prove his claims.

[PolePosition_1]

Actually, it was Knock-On's source originally.

Can you repost link?

Because I remember on the Saturday he questioned Ron's integrity, then retracted on the Sunday to say he believed that Ron had told what he believed to be the truth throughout and that what had previously been quoted was taken out of context / didn't come across as he had wanted.

Can I ask where you live?

[PolePosition_1]

LOL, I'm still expecting PP1 to provide a link to prove his claims.

lol when I get a bit of time I'll have a look for you :) .

but in meantime your welcome to look as well, as you said previously, my searching skills are much inferior to yours.

But I'm sure anyone who recieves ITV coverage will confirm this to be the case.

Does anyone know of an archived ITV news site or something similar I can use?

[ArrowsFA1]

Presumably Flavio Briatore had no knowledge that McLaren information had been "received and considered" within his team :p

Then again, the assumption is made that Ron Dennis knew everything that was going on within his team :crazy:

Presumably Flavio Briatore had no knowledge that McLaren information had been "received and considered" within his team :p

Then again, the assumption is made that Ron Dennis knew everything that was going on within his team :crazy:

You keep going on about that, but never, ever, admit there was a massive difference in the attitude and approach of Renault when summoned to the FIA.

Renault cooperated, the lot you defended did not.

You have never been able to stomach it, but it's the truth and the reason why Mclaren were humiliated.

Can you repost link?

Because I remember on the Saturday he questioned Ron's integrity, then retracted on the Sunday to say he believed that Ron had told what he believed to be the truth throughout and that what had previously been quoted was taken out of context / didn't come across as he had wanted.



"Richard Williams
The Guardian,
Saturday December 22 2007"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/dec/22/motorsports.sport?gusrc=rss&feed=sport

That's a long time after the Belgian GP.

I don't have a link to support your Belgian GP claim, sorry. Just that one, from later in the year, which therefore has to be a more up-to-date report on Mosley's view.

[ArrowsFA1]

Given that the issue is not "when they knew" but "how they reacted", then your question is largely besides the point.
I don't think so given that Renault are being held up as a good example of openness and honesty in their dealings with the FIA.

The fact is one of their employees, who had joined Renault from McLaren in Sept 2006, brought McLaren information with him which was being "received and considered" within Renault at a time when two other teams were embroiled in a "spy" case.

[PolePosition_1]

You keep going on about that, but never, ever, admit there was a massive difference in the attitude and approach of Renault when summoned to the FIA.

Renault cooperated, the lot you defended did not.

You have never been able to stomach it, but it's the truth and the reason why Mclaren were humiliated.

Thats the thing, if thats the point of your argument, your going in the wrong direction. How can McLaren co-operate when the top man Ron didn't know what was going on. As soon as he knew in Hungary, he told Max about it.

They couldn't co-operate as they didn't know themselves what was going on, and thats bad management, you can't punish them for lack of co-operation.

Does the WMSC report actually state lack of co-operation was the main reason for fine?

Last time I read it (a while ago so don't remember exactly), I remember it being primarily based on assumptions.

I don't think so given that Renault are being held up as a good example of openness and honesty in their dealings with the FIA.

The head of the FIA doesn't agree with you, nor did the FIA World Council...and the FIA are the governing body.

When you finally realise that it is what the governing body say and decide that is important, that it is how teams interact with that governing body that is the important factor and when you finally realise that the reality of the situation is that it is those two factors which are decisive in F1, no matter how unfair some Jackie Stewart fan-boy thinks that is, then you might well reach enlightenment yourself.

However, seeing how you have never been able to grasp the obvious differences between the Renault & Mclaren scenarios I won't hold my breath.

Thats the thing, if thats the point of your argument, your going in the wrong direction. How can McLaren co-operate when the top man Ron didn't know what was going on. As soon as he knew in Hungary, he told Max about it.

They couldn't co-operate as they didn't know themselves what was going on, and thats bad management, you can't punish them for lack of co-operation.



Sorry, but that is cobblers.

Mclaren management knew something was up when they were called to the first FIA hearing.

They knew something was wrong when Ferrari took court action against Coughlan,.

Their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

As Mosley points out If, when Ron learnt about it, had he just called Jean Todt [of Ferrari] and said, 'Listen, you've got to know about Stepney,' we'd never even have heard about it"

"The next opportunity was when they got caught with all the documents, and he should have just come to the world council and said, 'Look, I'm really sorry, a few of my people know about it and I'm going to eradicate it.' There would have been a very modest fine and maybe [a deduction of] a few points at the most and it would all have been over."

Ron Dennis knew something was rotten the kingdom of Woking before the first FIA hearing, but he didn't do enough about it.

[ioan]

Presumably Flavio Briatore had no knowledge that McLaren information had been "received and considered" within his team :p

Then again, the assumption is made that Ron Dennis knew everything that was going on within his team :crazy:

From my POV we have on one hand team A which were open to any kind of probation straight away, on the other hand we have team B which didn't agree to any external probation and went on denying anything for months!

Tell me which one looks like an honest team? And be as objective as you can, don't think about the real names of the teams, just to their attitude when faced with probation and it's consequences.

[ioan]

Sorry, but that is cobblers.

Mclaren management knew something was up when they were called to the first FIA hearing.

They knew something was wrong when Ferrari took court action against Coughlan,.

Their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

As Mosley points out If, when Ron learnt about it, had he just called Jean Todt [of Ferrari] and said, 'Listen, you've got to know about Stepney,' we'd never even have heard about it"

"The next opportunity was when they got caught with all the documents, and he should have just come to the world council and said, 'Look, I'm really sorry, a few of my people know about it and I'm going to eradicate it.' There would have been a very modest fine and maybe [a deduction of] a few points at the most and it would all have been over."

Ron Dennis knew something was rotten the kingdom of Woking before the first FIA hearing, but he didn't do enough about it.

I disagree, Ron did more than enough about it, he did his best trying to cover it up, trying to make it look like the FIA were after them innocent little puppies. He went as far as publicly lying about it accompanied with a few tears, not too mention all the mud slinging directed against Ferrari.

[ArrowsFA1]

The head of the FIA doesn't agree with you, nor did the FIA World Council...
About what? Renault's openness? No, I agree, they don't. However, as I've said the fact is one of their employees, who had joined Renault from McLaren in Sept 2006, brought McLaren information with him which was being "received and considered" within Renault at a time when two other teams were embroiled in a "spy" case. I hardly view that as being open and honest towards the FIA.

When you finally realise that it is what the governing body say and decide that is important...
Of course. The FIA decisions with regard to the McLaren and Renault cases are final. I accepted that a long time ago...the day each verdict was announced to be exact. Doesn't mean I agree with them though.

...no matter how unfair some Jackie Stewart fan-boy thinks that is...
:rolleyes:

However, seeing how you have never been able to grasp the obvious differences between the Renault & Mclaren scenarios I won't hold my breath.
I disagree with your opinion of any differences there may have been.

[ArrowsFA1]

Tell me which one looks like an honest team?
From your perspective - Renault :s mokin:

[ioan]

From your perspective - Renault :s mokin:

Well done.

I disagree with your opinion of any differences there may have been.

Disagreeing with them doesn't make them less of a fact.

Here, just in case you've forgotten what one looks like after a year of putting your head in the sand over Mclaren's actions, is another fact

Renault have co-operated fully with McLaren and the FIA in this matter to the extent that the team has invited McLaren's independent experts to come and assess the team's computer systems and inspect the cars and the design records, to demonstrate that this unfortunate incident has not in anyway influenced the design of the cars. Renault have acted with complete transparency towards McLaren and the FIA, being proactive in solving this matter and we are fully confident in the judgment of the World Council."

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/11/09/renault-responds-to-allegations/

If there really was no difference between the Renault scenario and the Mclaren-Ferrari affair, then you should be easily able to find a link to a press release from Mclaren confirming that they invited Ferrari's independent experts to assess the computers at Woking before Mclaren faced the WMSC.

Please provide this link. If you cannot, then there is no alternative but to dismiss your argument as fantasy and denial.

[jens]

Hamilton and Schumacher seem to be such universal persons that all kinds of issues seem to get under the spotlight in this thread. I'm looking forward to see global warming becoming a discussion object too.

Hamilton and Schumacher seem to be such universal persons that all kinds of issues seem to get under the spotlight in this thread. I'm looking forward to see global warming becoming a discussion object too.

Well, if the FIA had banned Mclaren for two years, as was suggested was a possibility at one stage, then at least their carbon footprint & carbon emissions would have been lower.

[Knock-on]

Do you have a link for this utter fabrication? Mclaren did not open their doors in the way Renault did. They did not offer Ferrari the opportunity to send in independent computer experts to study the Mclaren system

This is the link you provided earlier -

"On 16 July 2007, McLaren announced that its own internal investigation had revealed that "no Ferrari materials or data are or have ever been in the possession of any McLaren employee other than the individual sued by Ferrari. The fact that he held at his home unsolicited materials from Ferrari was not known to any other member of the team prior to July 3."

On 4 July 2007, McLaren announced it had conducted an investigation and concluded that "no Ferrari intellectual property has been passed to any other members of the team or incorporated into [our] cars." The team also invited the FIA to inspect its cars to confirm these facts; "In order to address some of the speculation McLaren has invited the FIA to conduct a full review of its cars to satisfy itself that the team has not benefited from any intellectual property of another competitor."[18] Since the revelation of Coughlan's involvement in the affair, McLaren provided a full set of drawings and development documents to the FIA, detailing all updates made to the team's chassis since the incident occurred at the end of April.[17}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Formula_One_espionage_controversy

Please tell me where in that is the evidence to support the idea that Mclaren matched Renaults co-operation?

Where in that is the offer to Ferrari send in an investigative independent expert as Renault did for Mclaren?

I'll save you looking....IT ISN'T THERE!!!

It is about time that you faced up to the fact that Mclaren management did no such thing as offer or cooperate in the manner which Renault management did.

Hence the huge but justified fine

I am trying to figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse or are incapable of reading a document and being objective.

From the thread I posted from Wikipedia which has referencable sources.


On 4 July 2007, McLaren announced it had conducted an investigation and concluded that "no Ferrari intellectual property has been passed to any other members of the team or incorporated into [our] cars." The team also invited the FIA to inspect its cars to confirm these facts; "In order to address some of the speculation McLaren has invited the FIA to conduct a full review of its cars to satisfy itself that the team has not benefited from any intellectual property of another competitor."[18] Since the revelation of Coughlan's involvement in the affair, McLaren provided a full set of drawings and development documents to the FIA, detailing all updates made to the team's chassis since the incident occurred at the end of April.[17]

I never said that McLaren did exactly the same as Renault but stated that they did exactly what I have just posted.

Anything else, my dear Tamburello, is the pure fabrication you claim.

Stop being argumentative for the sake of it. It's beneath you.

[Knock-on]

Lol ok, doesn't really matter who does it, same applies.

Knock On, wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

Check the citations at the bottom.

I would never claim something from Wiki is fact unless proven. (or of course, heresay of an opinion written in Finnish ;) )

[Knock-on]

What?
I suppose "a short period of time" means a few months to you. :rolleyes:

Check the timeline and then admit you're wrong.

(Was that the sound of Hell freezing over :rolleyes: )

[ArrowsFA1]

Disagreeing with them doesn't make them less of a fact.
Presenting opinion as if it were fact doesn't make your opinion any more of a fact. As I've said repeatedly I disagree with your opinion.

Feel free to to dismiss my opinion as fantasy and denial if you wish. It matters not at all to me.

End.

[Knock-on]

Disagreeing with them doesn't make them less of a fact.

Here, just in case you've forgotten what one looks like after a year of putting your head in the sand over Mclaren's actions, is another fact

Renault have co-operated fully with McLaren and the FIA in this matter to the extent that the team has invited McLaren's independent experts to come and assess the team's computer systems and inspect the cars and the design records, to demonstrate that this unfortunate incident has not in anyway influenced the design of the cars. Renault have acted with complete transparency towards McLaren and the FIA, being proactive in solving this matter and we are fully confident in the judgment of the World Council."

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/11/09/renault-responds-to-allegations/

If there really was no difference between the Renault scenario and the Mclaren-Ferrari affair, then you should be easily able to find a link to a press release from Mclaren confirming that they invited Ferrari's independent experts to assess the computers at Woking before Mclaren faced the WMSC.

Please provide this link. If you cannot, then there is no alternative but to dismiss your argument as fantasy and denial.

As I have pointed out previously, I am an expert on Disaster Recovery of IT systems.

I could quite easily hide anything on their systems that needed hiding but the one thing I could not hide is the back-up's.

Renault use tape and there is a physical audit that can be proven. Yet, that was preserved from any investigation.

Why??????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????

[Knock-on]

Sorry, but that is cobblers.

Mclaren management knew something was up when they were called to the first FIA hearing.

They knew something was wrong when Ferrari took court action against Coughlan,.

Their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.



I take it you can substantiate that McLaren admitted their response was lack-lu..........

Oh bollocks, I cant be bothered, of course you cant.

[Knock-on]

Well, if the FIA had banned Mclaren for two years, as was suggested was a possibility at one stage, then at least their carbon footprint & carbon emissions would have been lower.

The one good thing the FIA has done in my opinion is to make FIA governed motorsport, carbon friendly.

However, it was Max, not the FIA that wanted to ban McLaren for 2 years.

Otherwise, link please. :p

[PolePosition_1]

Sorry, but that is cobblers.

Mclaren management knew something was up when they were called to the first FIA hearing.

They knew something was wrong when Ferrari took court action against Coughlan,.

Their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

As Mosley points out If, when Ron learnt about it, had he just called Jean Todt [of Ferrari] and said, 'Listen, you've got to know about Stepney,' we'd never even have heard about it"

"The next opportunity was when they got caught with all the documents, and he should have just come to the world council and said, 'Look, I'm really sorry, a few of my people know about it and I'm going to eradicate it.' There would have been a very modest fine and maybe [a deduction of] a few points at the most and it would all have been over."

Ron Dennis knew something was rotten the kingdom of Woking before the first FIA hearing, but he didn't do enough about it.


Well mate, I don't believe Ron Dennis knew before the first hearing the extent the information was spread within McLaren.

I don't think its been proven, and I don't think the FIA punished them on them grounds anyway.

Where in the WMSC report did lack of co-operation lead to the huge fine and punishment? (although I don't believe they lacked co-operation). In my opinion they co-operated more than Benetton in 1994 considering circumstances.

I take it you can substantiate that McLaren admitted their response was lack-lu..........

Oh bollocks, I cant be bothered, of course you cant.

Yes I can.

"McLaren greatly regrets that its own investigations did not identify this material and has written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise for this.


McLaren has also written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise that it has taken an FIA investigation to find this information and have expressed our deep regret that our understanding of the facts was improved as a result of the FIA inspection rather than our own investigations. McLaren has recognised that this entire situation could have been avoided if we had informed Ferrari and the FIA about Nigel Stepney's first communication when it came to our attention. We are, of course, embarrassed by the successive disclosures and have apologised unreservedly to the FIA World Motor Sport Council."

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/12/7176.html

In my opinion they co-operated more than Benetton in 1994 considering circumstances.

FIA WMSC Extra-Ordinary Meetings Final Score -

Benetton 1994 - 0
Mclaren 2007 - 2

Your opinion you are entitled to, but the results speak of a different story.

If Mclaren co-operated more, why were they called to two hearings and only apologised after an FIA investigation following the second hearing?

Well mate, I don't believe Ron Dennis knew before the first hearing the extent the information was spread within McLaren.



I have never claimed that Ron was aware, and despite my opinion of him being severely reduced because of the events of 2007 I do believe that he personally had integrity when he said he did not know how widespread the information had been.

However, Ron's two faults in Spygate were not informing Ferrari & the FIA when he first became aware of info being leaked to Mclaren, which was after the Australian GP, and not getting to the bottom of the story himself by enforcing a total check.

I am sure that, now that the dust has settled, Ron would feel that those were mistakes. The Mclaren apology to the FIA certainly endorses that view.

Presenting opinion as if it were fact doesn't make your opinion any more of a fact. As I've said repeatedly I disagree with your opinion.

Feel free to to dismiss my opinion as fantasy and denial if you wish. It matters not at all to me.

End.

FACT

http://www.dailyf1news.com/dailyf1news/nieuw/artikel.php?nwsID=4172

FACT

http://www.totalf1.com/details/view/238583/Renault_decision_FIA_statement_in_full/

Deny it by all means, but don't try and claim that those are not facts

[PolePosition_1]

I have never claimed that Ron was aware, and despite my opinion of him being severely reduced because of the events of 2007 I do believe that he personally had integrity when he said he did not know how widespread the information had been.

However, Ron's two faults in Spygate were not informing Ferrari & the FIA when he first became aware of info being leaked to Mclaren, which was after the Australian GP, and not getting to the bottom of the story himself by enforcing a total check.

I am sure that, now that the dust has settled, Ron would feel that those were mistakes. The Mclaren apology to the FIA certainly endorses that view.

Sorry, when you said "Ron Dennis knew something was rotten the kingdom of Woking before the first FIA hearing, but he didn't do enough about it. "

I thought that implied you thought Ron did know about it. What did you mean by that statement?

I think that kind of inside source within eachother is part of F1. I don't think it would have been anything to be overally concerned about.

[Knock-on]

Yes I can.

"McLaren greatly regrets that its own investigations did not identify this material and has written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise for this.


McLaren has also written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise that it has taken an FIA investigation to find this information and have expressed our deep regret that our understanding of the facts was improved as a result of the FIA inspection rather than our own investigations. McLaren has recognised that this entire situation could have been avoided if we had informed Ferrari and the FIA about Nigel Stepney's first communication when it came to our attention. We are, of course, embarrassed by the successive disclosures and have apologised unreservedly to the FIA World Motor Sport Council."

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/12/7176.html


Nobody is querying what is contained in that statement.

However, it has no bearing on your accusation that their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

Admitting that with hindsight, things could have been handled differently is different to you accusation that they admitted their investigation was lack-lustre etc, etc.

Read the post before responding next time ;)

Care to prove otherwise?

Nobody is querying what is contained in that statement.

However, it has no bearing on your accusation that their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

Admitting that with hindsight, things could have been handled differently is different to you accusation that they admitted their investigation was lack-lustre etc, etc.

Read the post before responding next time ;)

Care to prove otherwise?

Mclaren's own admission is proof.

Only the blinkered would think that their investigation was full, deep and exhaustive.

The FIA investigation team found all the evidence in just one visit to Woking.

Care to prove that, by comparison, Mclaren's own investigation was anything other than half-assed?

Nobody is querying what is contained in that statement.

However, it has no bearing on your accusation that their response was a self-admitted lack-lustre, half-assed investigation by themselves.

Oh yes it has. It has every bearing.

Only the befuddled, the blinkered and the brain-dead could not see that.

I think that kind of inside source within eachother is part of F1. I don't think it would have been anything to be overally concerned about.

Tell that to Ferrari and the WMSC.

End.

I see the birds have flown*






*1642 Charles took 400 soldiers to Parliament to arrest five of the leading MPs. The MPs had been warned that he was coming and had already left the building before the king arrived. "I see the birds have flown," said the King.

http://www.saburchill.com/history/chapters/chap4003.html

[Knock-on]

Mclaren's own admission is proof.

Only the blinkered would think that their investigation was full, deep and exhaustive.

The FIA investigation team found all the evidence in just one visit to Woking.

Care to prove that, by comparison, Mclaren's own investigation was anything other than half-assed?

So, let me get this straight.

You make an allegation that McLaren admitted their investigation was half-arsed, lack-luster etc.

I refute that they ever said that.

You post a link where McLaren claim that things would have been differently and you use this as some sort of justification to your spurious accusation.

Then you ask me to investigate the quality of the McLaren investigation for you even though this has nothing to do with the claim you made.

Just WHAT are you trying to debate here?

It may be your opinion that the McLaren investigation was half-arsed but there is no proof it was.

There is admission from McLaren that things could have been done differently but we also have admission from the FIA that Ron acted in good faith.

We also have the timely offer by McLaren to open up their documentation and cars to the FIA for inspection to prove their claims that no Ferrari design had been incorporated and this was confirmed by the FIA.

This single fact rather makes a mockery of your accusations that they did not co-operate with the FIA in a timely manner and indeed, that their investigation was half arsed does it not?

Spin and spin all you want but you are making false accusations and are unable to substantiate them with anything other than opinion and bias.

Now, as there is nothing really worth reiterating on this subject (Groundhog day for sure Ben), perhaps we can get back to Hammy vs Schuey?

[ioan]

So, let me get this straight.

You make an allegation that McLaren admitted their investigation was half-arsed, lack-luster etc.

I refute that they ever said that.

You post a link where McLaren claim that things would have been differently and you use this as some sort of justification to your spurious accusation.

Then you ask me to investigate the quality of the McLaren investigation for you even though this has nothing to do with the claim you made.

Just WHAT are you trying to debate here?

It may be your opinion that the McLaren investigation was half-arsed but there is no proof it was.

There is admission from McLaren that things could have been done differently but we also have admission from the FIA that Ron acted in good faith.

We also have the timely offer by McLaren to open up their documentation and cars to the FIA for inspection to prove their claims that no Ferrari design had been incorporated and this was confirmed by the FIA.

This single fact rather makes a mockery of your accusations that they did not co-operate with the FIA in a timely manner and indeed, that their investigation was half arsed does it not?

Spin and spin all you want but you are making false accusations and are unable to substantiate them with anything other than opinion and bias.

Now, as there is nothing really worth reiterating on this subject (Groundhog day for sure Ben), perhaps we can get back to Hammy vs Schuey?

Sorry Knockie but Tam is right and you are just beating a dead horse just for the sake of arguing.

[PolePosition_1]

Disagreeing with them doesn't make them less of a fact.

Here, just in case you've forgotten what one looks like after a year of putting your head in the sand over Mclaren's actions, is another fact

Renault have co-operated fully with McLaren and the FIA in this matter to the extent that the team has invited McLaren's independent experts to come and assess the team's computer systems and inspect the cars and the design records, to demonstrate that this unfortunate incident has not in anyway influenced the design of the cars. Renault have acted with complete transparency towards McLaren and the FIA, being proactive in solving this matter and we are fully confident in the judgment of the World Council."

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2007/11/09/renault-responds-to-allegations/

If there really was no difference between the Renault scenario and the Mclaren-Ferrari affair, then you should be easily able to find a link to a press release from Mclaren confirming that they invited Ferrari's independent experts to assess the computers at Woking before Mclaren faced the WMSC.

Please provide this link. If you cannot, then there is no alternative but to dismiss your argument as fantasy and denial.

But will a link be good enough, when I provided a link about how Bennetton were not very co-operatative, you went on to state that they had to do that for legal reasons. And you claimed the FIA fined them $100,000 because they refused to break the law.

[Knock-on]

Sorry Knockie but Tam is right and you are just beating a dead horse just for the sake of arguing.

Well, there seems to be a strange definition of what is right and wrong then.

It is a bit like flogging a dead horse when people jump all over the place instead of sticking to the point.

However, the point of this thread is Hamilton Vs Schumacher and not the flights of fancy that Tamburello thinks McLaren have said.

Back to the thread. End of...

[SGWilko]

Well, if the FIA had banned Mclaren for two years, as was suggested was a possibility at one stage, then at least their carbon footprint & carbon emissions would have been lower.

Global Warming? That's just a load of hot air....

[PolePosition_1]

FIA WMSC Extra-Ordinary Meetings Final Score -

Benetton 1994 - 0
Mclaren 2007 - 2

Your opinion you are entitled to, but the results speak of a different story.

If Mclaren co-operated more, why were they called to two hearings and only apologised after an FIA investigation following the second hearing?

Thats the point of the argument, McLaren seem to be disadvantaged for similar crimes.

I'm saying how can they co-operate when they're not aware of what is going on. As soon as they were aware, they co-operated fully.

Punish them for poor management etc, but not co-operating and lying is another story.


But again, I don't remember co-operation being mentioned in the WMSC with regards to the punishment.

[SGWilko]

the sound of Hell freezing over :rolleyes: )

Get the DVD, bung it on the surround sound system using DTS and crank up the volume. Definately a well rendered soundtrack, and a group of musicians at the top of their game.....

....but I digress! :)

[ioan]

Global Warming? That's just a load of hot air....

In fact it is! :D

[mstillhere]

Yes I can.

"McLaren greatly regrets that its own investigations did not identify this material and has written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise for this.


McLaren has also written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise that it has taken an FIA investigation to find this information and have expressed our deep regret that our understanding of the facts was improved as a result of the FIA inspection rather than our own investigations. McLaren has recognised that this entire situation could have been avoided if we had informed Ferrari and the FIA about Nigel Stepney's first communication when it came to our attention. We are, of course, embarrassed by the successive disclosures and have apologised unreservedly to the FIA World Motor Sport Council."

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/12/7176.html

(Boy this is sooooooooo pointless, but.....)

Hi Tam. And now that you did McLaren fans would read it and 2 seconds later they'll totally forget about it. Now, don't delete this stuff because in a couple of days they are going to ask you the exact same question. Why? Hum...let me think...oh, yes!!!!! I got it: it's called DENIAL!!!!!!!!
I cant still forget those guys who were actually blaming Ferrari for not intercepting Stepney before he would give MCLAREN the documents. The nerve - I know, I gave them more material. But, what the heck..!!!)

Oh, no...i did it again....i had promised to myself not to get back in here again. Like before I just totally wasted two beautiful minutes of my precious life. What a waste. But this is it. Never again. Bye.....for...now....

So, let me get this straight.

You make an allegation that McLaren admitted their investigation was half-arsed, lack-luster etc.

I refute that they ever said that.

You post a link where McLaren claim that things would have been differently and you use this as some sort of justification to your spurious accusation.

So Mclaren's own investigation that found nothing was as good as the FIA-led visit to Woking that found everything within 1 day?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/half-assed

"1. poorly or incompetently done"

Mclaren admitted that they regretted that its own investigations did not identify this material. By any definition, that means that their investigation was poorly or incompletely done.

The only possible explanation, therefore, is that their investigation was half-assed.

Well, actually, there is another explanation, that being that they were deliberately attempting to conceal the extent of the information being used, but I'm willing to accept that the management at Mclaren aren't actually that under-hand.

Therefore, the only fair explanation is that it was, as I have claimed and proved, half-assed.

It is, therefore, not a spurious claim at all. It is a fact