The leak came from Alonso
Jari Arkko
came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
has heard Ferrari-related information from a
McLaren test driver. He confessed under threat
of losing his own license.
Not repeated in english-speaking press - so far,
at least. I have no idea about the reliability
of this news item.
Jari Arkko
Hell and High Water
ja...@otapois.arkko.com says...
The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from which
it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari was used to
help McLaren with its set-up.
McLaren should be banned from ever competing in F1 again.
-Bob
John Briggs
> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
> McLaren test driver.
That would be a Spanish test driver, of course...
--
John Briggs
gs
> In article <46e03f4f$0$3195$8f74b...@news.maxinetti.fi>,
> j...@otapois.arkko.com says...
I agree along with the team that sent it.
gs
> In article <46e03976$0$3195$8f74b...@news.maxinetti.fi>,
>
> Thank you.
>
> It confirms that McLaren are the thieving scum we've all argued they
> were.
>
> It's despicable that some trash here actually tried to defend McLaren
> despite being instructed otherwise by Ferrari fans.
>
Is that because Fiat are always so honest in their approach to the
sport that they and their fans gain little support in the world of
motorsport?
Fiat and their drivers have never done anything that could be classed
as underhand - People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Joseph
But what sort of setup information could there be that is suitable for
both the Ferrari and the McLaren (which are different cars), and which
is something that McLaren couldn't simply have hit upon themselves
through a systematic testing procedure. If you are talking about setup,
you aren't talking about something that involves the design of hardware
- thereby limiting the number of possible alternatives that can be
tried, but something that can be easily discovered through a
comprehensive test program.
RBrickston
Hell and High Water
gp.sk...@talk21.com says...
Alonso sent it, obviously...
-Bob
>
>
gs
> In article <1189102776.015123.307...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> gp.skin...@talk21.com says...
WTF, You're saying Alonso sent the Fiat data to mclaren, where did he
get it from then?
It takes two to 'spy' one to send and one to receive, yet people are
happy that only one of the two should be punished which must mean they
have ulterior motives for the wanting to see mclaren punished.
Probert
"noone" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:noone-E3E4E7....@free.teranews.com...
> In article <46e04722$0$32550$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Joseph <jos...@eliminatespam.com> wrote:
>
>> Hell and High Water wrote:
>> > In article <46e03f4f$0$3195$8f74...@news.maxinetti.fi>,
>> > ja...@otapois.arkko.com says...
>> >> Jari Arkko kirjoitti:
>> >>> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
>> >>> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
>> >>> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
>> >>> McLaren test driver. He confessed under threat
>> >>> of losing his own license.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not repeated in english-speaking press - so far,
>> >>> at least. I have no idea about the reliability
>> >>> of this news item.
>> >> Here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19579.html
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
>> > Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from which
>> > it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari was used to
>> > help McLaren with its set-up.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> But what sort of setup information could there be that is suitable for
>> both the Ferrari and the McLaren (which are different cars), and which
>> is something that McLaren couldn't simply have hit upon themselves
>> through a systematic testing procedure.
>
Apart from the very boring fact - a real fact - that McLaren (nor, even,
Coughlan) stole nothing....
One of my favourite films (mainly because of the music - but also because
Sean Penn hadn't, then, dissappeared up his own fundament). The book's much
more informative, though.
Directed by a Brit, Brian.
Cheers,
Probert.
Bigbird
> In article <MPG.2149ffd88...@news.giganews.com>,
> All honest fans will agree.
Such blatant dishonesty.
--
Luigi Topolino
Are you seriously suggesting that Ferrari SENT their information to
McLaren, as a willful and conscious act?
John Briggs
It's an old trick.
--
John Briggs
Bigbird
As much as McLaren received it clearly. Go figure fuckwit.
--
Probert
--
Cheers,
Probert.
"noone" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:noone-A9308D....@free.teranews.com...
> In article <LcidndHbC8kPyH3b...@bt.com>,
> "Probert" <nick.wf1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Apart from the very boring fact - a real fact - that McLaren (nor, even,
>> Coughlan) stole nothing....
>
> That may work in the Communist states, but we don't have a collective
> forgetting over here.
Well, like it or not, the fact is that nothing was stolen. It seems to have
got into Coughlan's hands via an extremely pissed-off Ferrari employee.
However it got there, it wasn't stolen.
>
> BTB: The theme song was by an American who kindly flipped David some
> lyrics.
Actually, it was the Metheny music I was getting at - I've been a long time
fan. As for PM flipping anyone lyrics... AIUI Bowie heard Metheny and his
band recording the instrumental version in a studio in Montreux and offered
to try and write some lyrics.
>
> The instrumental is better.
Hmmm. I'm still undecided more than twenty years on.
Cheers,
Probert.
CatharticF1
@news.maxinetti.fi:
AMuS are saying much the same..
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sport/formel_1/hxcms_article_506694_
13987.hbs
The Babelfish translation calls De La Rosa "de la Pink ones" :)
--
CatharticF1
McLaren - breaking regulations with impunity.
CatharticF1
$ph7....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
Sure - everyone's lying but the English, huh?
CatharticF1
Luigi Topolino
wrote:
...Ignorance in the defense of larceny and malfeasance is no virtue,
dirtbag.
Luigi Topolino
wrote:
It's more the gasping of landed fish, which has always made me
uncomfortable.
a_Frank
wrote:
Well, i only have one problem with this rumour. If Alonso did that, he
may have cut his own throat.
It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere and i would expect those
teams, or anyone really, to be very wary in employing a known whistle
blower.
And i wouldn't have thought that Alonso would be so stupid as to not
realise that. Or maybe he was really done wrong by McLaren and he just
doesn't give a damn. It's not like he has to go back to sweeping
streets.
Still, even if he is employed, he'd be kept so much in the dark as
possible. Worse, his action may actually make all the teams lock away
a lot of otherwise useful information from drivers, because one just
never knows what can happen in a few months..
Sad affair all around.
--
Regards, Frank
Hal S.
"a_Frank" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:07d1e3pb5bskokpte...@4ax.com...
------------------------------
However, if the rumor is true, and Alonso did divulge the information, we
don't know what the circumstances were in which he talked. He might have had
no option. But this is just idle speculation at this point. I guess we may
know in another week.\
--
Hal S.
DC
<ja...@otapois.arkko.com> wrote:
>Jari Arkko kirjoitti:
>> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
>> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
>> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
>> McLaren test driver. He confessed under threat
>> of losing his own license.
>>
>> Not repeated in english-speaking press - so far,
>> at least. I have no idea about the reliability
>> of this news item.
>
>Here:
>
>http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19579.html
My but Alonso is really pissed off at Ron, eh...?
David
Alessandro D. Petaccia
<fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>Well, i only have one problem with this rumour. If Alonso did that, he
>may have cut his own throat.
Well, as soon as they said "a driver" it was clear to me that it
couldn't be anyone else - this has "Briatore" written all over it. The
man wants Alonso back and he's been saying that McLaren should be
punished for weeks; AND he's Flavio. You do the math...
>It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
>teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere and i would expect those
>teams, or anyone really, to be very wary in employing a known whistle
>blower.
I wouldn't know about that. F1 seems to have become extremely cynical.
>And i wouldn't have thought that Alonso would be so stupid as to not
>realise that.
Likewise. And besides, it doesn't quite add up: I fail to understand
how Fred and Pedro could know about having Ferrari-derived technology
in their cars, let alone discuss it. Basically this is a case of "I'm
sure it was him, but I'm also sure I'm wrong" for me...
ADP.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> >http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19579.html
>
> The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
> Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from which
> it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari was used to
> help McLaren with its set-up.
>
> McLaren should be banned from ever competing in F1 again.
Your argument would be more convincing if you hadn't deliberately
misquoted from grandprix.com.
You've left out the words "The suggestion is that..." from the first
sentence. And the sentence following the passage that you selectively
quote starts with "There is nothing to back up these rumours...."
Bob Dubery
> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
> McLaren test driver. He confessed under threat
> of losing his own license.
Now assuming this is true, why would Alonso confess? Only because
somebody else came to know about these alleged communications.
So now - and again assuming this is true - this suggests a situation
where there is a lot of spying and wire tapping going on in F1.
Not a good thing for the sport at all. If this is all true it means
that at least one team is actively spying on at least one other team.
Forget about loyalties to one team or another, this, if true, is bad
for F1 full stop.
Bob Dubery
> In article <1189106211.716631.263...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gs <gp.skin...@talk21.com> wrote:
> > It takes two to 'spy' one to send and one to receive, yet people are
> > happy that only one of the two should be punished which must mean they
> > have ulterior motives for the wanting to see mclaren punished.
>
>
> What?
>
> Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?
It's a perfectly reasonable observation. Do you think that Coughlan
got those documents by walking into Ferrari HO and just helping
himself?
Well in fact that's a possiblity, given that this is not the first
time that a team has been charged with possessing improperly gained
Ferrari data.
Either Ferrari's offices have been leaking like a sieve or there were
people within that organisation who took it upon themselves to provide
information to other teams.
Bob Dubery
> Are you seriously suggesting that Ferrari SENT their information to
> McLaren, as a willful and conscious act?
Well it's one thing to crow that Dennis is a thief and his team are
cheats because one of their staff members, acting, as far as can be
ascertained, on his own had some Ferrari data. But clearly that data
came from somebody within the Ferrari organisation.
So if Dennis must be held responsible for Coughlan's behaviour, then
should Ferrari perhaps be held reponsible for a member of their staff
being the other partner in the tango? It might even be interesting to
speculate how it is that Ferrari have either this type of unethical
person working for them or have pissed off staff to the point where
they will betray the team.
gs
Thankfully I do, which is something you can rarely claim.
Paul Ian Harman
news:46e03976$0$3195$8f74...@news.maxinetti.fi...
> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
> McLaren test driver.
<cynic>
That's a bit of luck for Alonso - what a way to get out of his 3-year
contract!
</cynic>
Paul
Bob Dubery
> In article <uao0e31p4rubs4umgs9cs2tqqnr4q34...@4ax.com>,
> Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you seriously suggesting that Ferrari SENT their information to
> > McLaren, as a willful and conscious act?
>
>
> Hope is fading fast, so they're sending up clouds of smoke.
Funny that you want to state that another poster is "dissembling" and
suggest that "they" (whoever they are) are sending up clouds of smoke,
but you're not concerned about the deliberate misquoting in the post
at the top of this thread.
Why is that?
Phil Carmody
You have to remember that when he encounters the phrase "inside man",
he's thinking of something _completely_ different.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
Suzieflame
That Ferrari did this is already admitted, imbecile.
Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
You can't have it both ways.
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Mark
>
> Not a good thing for the sport at all. If this is all true it means
> that at least one team is actively spying on at least one other team.
>
> Forget about loyalties to one team or another, this, if true, is bad
> for F1 full stop.
But is it?
Before people jump, I'm not talking about a situation where an employee
breaks confidences or profits from such a breach*. I'm talking about
"spying", whatever that is. Where do you cross the line from examining
your opposition to "spying"?
* Which should, if it happened, be severely punished. Leaking your
employers information deliberately or (intentionally) accepting such
data when you know it's been obtained unfairly is underhand, no matter
what the circumstances are. Of course, we don't _know_ precisely what
happened with Stepney and Coughlin yet.
I am certain that _every_ team does their utmost to know as much about
their competition as possible, and they'd be negligent if they didn't.
I am equally certain that (at times) they are faced with moral dilemmas
as to whether or not the information that comes their way is acceptable
(whether legally or morally).
If by "actively spying" you mean wiretapping and other illegal
activities, I agree with you. Equally, if you mean deliberately setting
out to infiltrate teams or encourage employees to break confidences.
What about spotters and others employed to gather intelligence on other
teams? People employed to build up dossiers on rival drivers and test
setups (gathered legally, of course)? Is that illegal? Unethical? Bad
for the sport? I'd say not, and you might not mean these activities,
but they could be described as "spying".
F1 is a hugely complex and technical sport where all data is of value.
If any team (whether a top team like McLaren or Ferrari or a lower team
like Spyker or Super Aguri) claims they never indulge in intelligence
gathering on their competitors, they're lying.
And despite the fact that I will have huge sympathy with Ferrari if it's
shown that McLaren benefitted from stolen data, I think it's their
straight-faced shock that anyone might use data from another team that I
find most disingenous.
...BUT, we still don't know the circumstances. I think one of the most
damaging things about this whole sorry affair is the damage it has done
to the racing. No matter whether it is shown that McLaren are the bad
guys (i.e. that they _did_ gain an advantage and they _did_ know they
were handling Ferrari data) or that this is a case of bad behaviour by
individuals that didn't benefit McLaren/harm Ferrari, there is a huge
amount of damage this season (in no particular order):
* To relations between the teams, which I believe have never
been worse;
* To individuals who have had their names (potentially unfairly)
dragged through the dirt;
* To drivers (especially in Ferrari and McLaren) who have a right
to feel their interests have not been well served this season;
* To the racing - neither Ferrari nor McLaren can have focused
properly on their racing as there have been too many distractions
off the track;
* To the FIA, who have (again) shown they don't know how to conduct
an investigation without inflaming the situation;
* To F1, which looks like it can't keep its house in order.
Just my opinion.
Mark
AC
"Suzieflame" <suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote in message
news:fh42e3tdep0n2lpbt...@4ax.com...
Yes he can, and always does. Haven't you noticed?
AC
Peter James
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99A4632C7BD0F...@202.83.64.15...
> http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sport/formel_1/hxcms_article_506694_
> 13987.hbs
>
> The Babelfish translation calls De La Rosa "de la Pink ones" :)
>
Hmm, sunbathes with his knickers on eh?
DC
wrote:
>On Sep 6, 8:16 pm, Hell and High Water <tifoso...@OVEcomcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>> >http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19579.html
>>
>> The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
>> Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from which
>> it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari was used to
>> help McLaren with its set-up.
>>
>> McLaren should be banned from ever competing in F1 again.
>
>Your argument would be more convincing if you hadn't deliberately
>misquoted from grandprix.com.
No it wouldn't. It's from a half wit....
>You've left out the words "The suggestion is that..." from the first
>sentence. And the sentence following the passage that you selectively
>quote starts with "There is nothing to back up these rumours...."
Well, I already pointed out the first but thanks for picking the
imbecile up on the second...
David
DC
<ale...@despammed.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:53 +1000, a_Frank
><fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>Well, i only have one problem with this rumour. If Alonso did that, he
>>may have cut his own throat.
>
>Well, as soon as they said "a driver" it was clear to me that it
>couldn't be anyone else - this has "Briatore" written all over it. The
>man wants Alonso back and he's been saying that McLaren should be
>punished for weeks; AND he's Flavio. You do the math...
The result of my calculations is one big smell...
David
DC
Which pretty much mirrors mine. Excellent post. Thanks for trying to
restore some balance. The jumping to conclusions based on nothing more
than press speculation and concomitant banging on the same old drum by
the tifauxsi is getting very tiresome - again.
David
AC
To be fair, we really dont know the circumatances under which Alonso
dished the dirt. Yes, I smell many conspiritorial rats, but equally
Alonso may have come under some pressure.
For sure, this is getting worse.
AC
Bigbird
Not figured it yet then. Keep trying, Bigot.
--
Bigbird
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in news:urXDi.37407
> $ph7....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:
>
> > Jari Arkko wrote:
> >> Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
> >> came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
> >> has heard Ferrari-related information from a
> >> McLaren test driver.
> >
> > That would be a Spanish test driver, of course...
>
> Sure - everyone's lying but the English, huh?
Frustcunty imitating Brendan? or vice versa.
--
News
Is there a Whistleblower Statute in F1?
a_Frank
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:53 +1000, a_Frank scribed:
>
>> Well, i only have one problem with this rumour. If Alonso did that, he
>> may have cut his own throat.
>> It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
>> teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere and i would expect those
>> teams, or anyone really, to be very wary in employing a known whistle
>> blower.
>
>There's surely a difference between a little dirty laundry, and copies
>of entire plans from another team.
>
Not to me. Put yourself in the place of an employer. You can hire a
good person, with a clean record, or a good person, with a record of
having blow just even an incy little whistle to land a similar company
in the craps..
Dunno about you, but i'd take the former..I also rarely ever cuddle
snakes.
--
Regards, Frank
Paul-B
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:30:55 -0700, Bob Dubery <mega...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 6, 8:16 pm, Hell and High Water <tifoso...@OVEcomcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19579.html
> > >
> >> The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
> >> Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from
> which >> it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari
> was used to >> help McLaren with its set-up.
> > >
> >> McLaren should be banned from ever competing in F1 again.
> >
> > Your argument would be more convincing if you hadn't deliberately
> > misquoted from grandprix.com.
>
> No it wouldn't. It's from a half wit....
>
Praise indeed. I'd say that was overestimating the jerk.
--
Paul-B
Fruitcake? Or no-brain? Or both (two big smells)?
--
Paul-B
> So now - and again assuming this is true - this suggests a situation
> where there is a lot of spying and wire tapping going on in F1.
'twas ever thus.
--
gs
Did it not look like this? http://snurl.com/1qf9m ;-)
News
>
>
> Did it not look like this? http://snurl.com/1qf9m ;-)
>
Or is it http://snurl.com/1qf9u
Shevek
>
>
> Is there a Whistleblower Statute in F1?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62097
[...]
Mosley wrote to all 11 teams last Friday making it clear that it was
their duty to provide any evidence relating to the spy affair.
Similar letters were also sent to Alonso, de la Rosa and Lewis Hamilton,
asking them to provide any evidence they had in exchange for an
'amnesty' over any possible sanctions.
[...]
--
Shevek
a_Frank
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:40:57 +0200, Alessandro D. Petaccia
><ale...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:25:53 +1000, a_Frank
>><fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, i only have one problem with this rumour. If Alonso did that, he
>>>may have cut his own throat.
>>
>>Well, as soon as they said "a driver" it was clear to me that it
>>couldn't be anyone else - this has "Briatore" written all over it. The
>>man wants Alonso back and he's been saying that McLaren should be
>>punished for weeks; AND he's Flavio. You do the math...
>
>The result of my calculations is one big smell...
>
Hm.. So.....
Briatore paid off Stepney to send the material, then he paid Coughlan
to implement them into the testing program so Alonso and Pedro would
find out about it. He told them to go to Honda together and offer
their service, effectively providing a cover for their actions and
also to not allow any of the material to be used on actual McLaren
team cars(apart from testing), in order to assure that Renault won't
look too bad in comparison.
Then he made a request to Coughlan for copies made at a "trusted"
copier company, whose temp employee for the day was one of Flavio's
insiders. This person, while still alive, duly instructed Ferrari
about this action to get the ball rolling.
THen Flavio sat back and watched it all evolve, until he saw that he
had to speed things up as contract times are closing in fast.
This is when he talked to Alonso about a good trick in the pits..
being the crafty bugger, he knew all well this would lead to a
breakdown between Alonso and McLaren, so in the meantime he also
advised the FIA that drivers should be told to inform about all they
know.. Busy boy Flav also made some quick media appearences where he
tossed more fuel on the fire by asking for McLaren's head over
Ferrari-gate and spent some time advising Alonso to be always on the
FIA's good side and comply with their requests.
And so... here we are. Bloody Flav. :-)
--
Regards, Frank
Jon Ross
> In article <1189106211.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> gs <gp.sk...@talk21.com> wrote:
>
>> It takes two to 'spy' one to send and one to receive, yet people are
>> happy that only one of the two should be punished which must mean they
>> have ulterior motives for the wanting to see mclaren punished.
>
> ???
>
> What?
>
> Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?
>
What punishment do you think Ferrari should get if it is proven that one
of their employees acted illegally in supplying documents to another team?
gs
> >>Is there a Whistleblower Statute in F1?
>
Nice to see young people behaving so well, I'm sure the kids parents
are so proud.
gs
>
> >> It takes two to 'spy' one to send and one to receive, yet people are
> >> happy that only one of the two should be punished which must mean they
> >> have ulterior motives for the wanting to see mclaren punished.
>
> > ???
>
> > What?
>
> > Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?
>
> What punishment do you think Ferrari should get if it is proven that one
> of their employees acted illegally in supplying documents to another team?
So it's okay for the whole of McLaren to be punished by the actions of
one person (or a few persons) but not the other way round?
Anand
>
> It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
> teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere
Williams too?
--
"Now here's a corner I bet you've never heard of - Laranja. It's just 50
miles an hour in second gear."
Luigi Topolino
<suzie...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:22:46 -0400, Luigi Topolino
><tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On 6 Sep, 19:16, Hell and High Water <tifoso...@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <46e03f4f$0$3195$8f74b...@news.maxinetti.fi>,
>>>> > Jari Arkko kirjoitti:
>>>> > > Finnish press is reporting that the leak to FIA
>>>> > > came from Alonso, and that he's confessed he
>>>> > > has heard Ferrari-related information from a
>>>> > > McLaren test driver. He confessed under threat
>>>> > > of losing his own license.
>>>>
>>>> > > Not repeated in english-speaking press - so far,
>>>> > > at least. I have no idea about the reliability
>>>> > > of this news item.
>>>>
>>>> > Here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The damning evidence against McLaren is a series of e-mails between
>>>> Fernando Alonso and McLaren 's test driver Pedro de la Rosa, from which
>>>> it is clear that information that originated from Ferrari was used to
>>>> help McLaren with its set-up.
>>>>
>>>> McLaren should be banned from ever competing in F1 again.
>>>
>>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that Ferrari SENT their information to
>>McLaren, as a willful and conscious act?
>
>
>Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
LOL
Stepney [whomever] acted outside the purview of his Ferrari employee
in stealing and sending the proprietary information, Coughlan was
following orders at McLaren when he accepted and utilized the
information.
>You can't have it both ways.
Yes, I'll leave that to you, he/she.
Luigi Topolino
LOFL
Maybe Wells and his magic broom can explain it to you.
News
gs wrote:
No doubt, as football fanatics, they are f'n thrilled.
a_Frank
>In article <O_aEi.45607$S91....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
>What punishment should a wife get if her husband ties her down and
>allows another man to rape her?
>
So you think Ferrari tied down Stepney and let Coughlan rape him ?
Really ??
>You're fucking daft.
>
ROFL.
--
Regards, Frank
a_Frank
You forgutta belch..
--
Regards, Frank
a_Frank
wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 at 02:25 GMT, a_Frank wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
>> teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere
>
>Williams too?
>
Ok, except for Williams. ;-p
--
Regards, Frank
ric zito
> >Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
>
> LOL
Uncomfortable laugh?
--
ric
ric at pixelligence dot com
Suzieflame
Just post that proof, will you?
Suzie
--
Suzieflame
Bigbird
No need to reply until you figure it out...unless of course you require
help.
--
Alessandro D. Petaccia
Nonsense. Nobody at McLaren - or even Spyker - could be so incredibly
stupid as to order an employee to accept and utilize some other team's
IP. On the other hand, however, if (if!) they came into possession of
said IP and... let's say... reviewed it, whether they utilized it or
not in their 2007 project, then McLaren *are* at fault. It all
depends, of course, on how many people are involved: Ferrari's
allegation seem to be that it was a vast amount of key-positioned
McLaren guys, hence the responsibility.
But while I'm on the subject of stupid people doing stupid things: if
you were in possession of your worst enemy's best-kept (well, not so
best-kept it would seem, but anyway) secrets, would you tell your
bloody DRIVERS? All three of them?! I mean, really..!
ADP.
Probert
--
Cheers,
Probert.
"a_Frank" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:p1c2e31600qdvhs1q...@4ax.com...
You've just killed-off employment in the 'media' in it's entirity, Frank!
Thanks. Thank you very much. ;-)
Cheers,
Probert.
Jon Ross
I think you misunderstood the tone of my post.
Jon Ross
> In article <O_aEi.45607$S91....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
> Jon Ross <as...@forit.co.uk> wrote:
>
> allows another man to rape her?
>
>
Isn't what has happened here more that the wife has asked the husband to
get some men round for an orgy?
Actually it's a stupid fucking analogy.
The FIA doctrine dictates that a company is responsible for its
employees. From the surface it appears that the employees of 2 companies
- McLaren and Ferrari behaved illegally therefore surely both companies
should receive equal punishment.
Either you accept that employees of *both* companies are at fault or
this is just a big misunderstanding.
gs
It's probably the worst analogy I've seen on here for a long time, and
that's saying something.
> The FIA doctrine dictates that a company is responsible for its
> employees. From the surface it appears that the employees of 2 companies
> - McLaren and Ferrari behaved illegally therefore surely both companies
> should receive equal punishment.
I'd agree, which is what I badly tried to say earlier in this
thread ;-) it wasn't just one person in one company which many are
happy to ignore.
> Either you accept that employees of *both* companies are at fault or
> this is just a big misunderstanding.
Sadly it's likely this is not a big misunderstanding, but whether we
ever find out what really went on is another matter.
John Briggs
It seems that data wasn't shared equally between the two race drivers :-)
--
John Briggs
Paul-B
<fx> tumbleweed
--
Lloyd
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 10:58:13 +0200, Suzieflame
>
>
>
> <suziefl...@yachtmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:22:46 -0400, Luigi Topolino
> ><tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Switched to new meds, did you?
Prosch
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 at 02:25 GMT, a_Frank wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
> > teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere
>
> Williams too?
Deliberately destroying a black box and telemetry data not to
incriminate themselves for negligence causing the death of Ayrton
Senna. Williams have nothing to hide for Williams(apart from lying
through their asses and destroying evidence.
Probert
--
Cheers,
Probert.
"Luigi Topolino" <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fpl2e39r7vg165839...@4ax.com...
That's a convenient way of putting it. Myopic, but convenient - in light of
the following....
Coughlan was
> following orders at McLaren when he accepted and utilized the
> information.
Like I said convenient.
And I'm sure you believe it, Mark. What evidence do you have - that no-one
else has, not even Ferrari, apparently - that Coughlan was acting under
'orders at McLaren' with regard to the document in question. Perhaps you
should forward this to the FIA/WMSC. I'm sue they'd find it very
enlightening.
Trouble is, McLaren have already stated publicly and in legal submissions to
the courts of two countries and the WMSC that they had no knowledge of what
Coughlan (and Stepney) were up to.
Remember the meeting with Honda Coughlan and Stepney had? What do you think
that was about?
>
>>You can't have it both ways.
You would like to, though, it seems.
Fuckwit.
Cheers,
Probert.
Probert
--
Cheers,
Probert.
"Prosch" <interl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189201602.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How did they destroy a black box? Genuine question.
I've always been under the impression that Senna's car was immediately
impounded by the Italian court - normal practice - and wasn't returned to
Williams until a few years later, at the conclusion of the last hearing.
Though, I believe they did have court supervise access to prepare their
case.
There's an incredible amout of bollocks written in this group that, to some,
if said for long enough and loudly enough, becomes 'fact' - even if it's
still bollocks.
Cheers,
Probert.
Dreddie
> On 7 Sep, 13:41, Anand <anandnNOS...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 at 02:25 GMT, a_Frank wrote:
> >
> > > It doesn't matter whether it's the right thing to do or not, but all
> > > teams have a little dirty laundry somewhere
> >
> > Williams too?
>
> Deliberately destroying a black box and telemetry data not to
> incriminate themselves for negligence causing the death of Ayrton
> Senna.
>
>
Jonathan Peirce
>
> That Ferrari did this is already admitted, imbecile.
>
> Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
>
>
actually, some here think you can.
Stepney=Ferrari, Coughlin= 'Rogue Employee'
JP
a_Frank
<nick.wf1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Just a little note. Could you at fix your sig so it's not a valid sig,
or perhaps just move it to the bottom of your posts ? ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Probert
I just noticed that too ;-). Just goes to show how badly you set things up
when you've been away for a while... or I do, at least.
--
Cheers,
Probert.
(Better?)
a_Frank
<nick.wf1...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>(Better?)
>
Cheers.
For me it is better. Forte will cut any text after and including the
sig when doing a standard reply. So there i was looking at nothing to
reply to. I felt like i was replying to one of Bwian's posts. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Luigi Topolino
Wait for the hearing.
Luigi Topolino
>Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
>> LOL
>
>Uncomfortable laugh?
C'mon Ric... The Cunliffe Snip?
Vacation that debilitating, was it?
Luigi Topolino
Careful who you're calling a fuckwit, shitstain, that "lady" packs a
"gun".
ric zito
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:37:36 +0200, add...@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
> >Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
> >> LOL
> >
> >Uncomfortable laugh?
>
> C'mon Ric... The Cunliffe Snip?
No idea what that is, I'm afraid.
The fact is, you can't have it both ways when it comes to bringing the
sport into disrepute.
Soon-to-be-convicted thief, snitch, trafficker of secret info, saboteur
and spy Nigel Stepney was, or wasn't, an employee of Ferrari? Ferrari
are, or aren't, to be considered responsible for and associated with his
actions ? Furthermore, is this the first time Ferrari have harboured
criminals in their midst, or not?
Vacation was great, thanks. And yours?
--
Luigi Topolino
>Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:37:36 +0200, add...@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>> >Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's employees.
>> >> LOL
>> >
>> >Uncomfortable laugh?
>>
>> C'mon Ric... The Cunliffe Snip?
>
>No idea what that is, I'm afraid.
Please... The rather childish technique of trimming, or inserting a
word into, a "quotation" to make it appear the poster said something
they distinctly did not, for purposes humorous or more usually
otherwise. It's was hackneyed in grade school, for most.
>The fact is, you can't have it both ways when it comes to bringing the
>sport into disrepute.
Only by extremely simplistic analysis, I'm afraid.
>Soon-to-be-convicted thief, snitch, trafficker of secret info, saboteur
>and spy Nigel Stepney was, or wasn't, an employee of Ferrari?
Indeed, and employee acting far outside the scope of his employ.
>Ferrari are, or aren't, to be considered responsible for and associated with his
>actions?
No.
Not when he acts outside the scope of his employ and certainly not
when he acts in his own, diametrically opposed to, rather than company
interests.
It's settled law in most places, codified in the rest.
>Furthermore, is this the first time Ferrari have harboured
>criminals in their midst, or not?
...Waiter, I didn't order any red herring.
>Vacation was great, thanks. And yours?
Not so much.
Probert
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:15:26 +0200, add...@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:37:36 +0200, add...@in.sig (ric zito) wrote:
>>> >Luigi Topolino <tif...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> >> >Ferrari=Ferraris's employees, just like McLaren= McLaren's
>>> >> >employees.
>>> >> LOL
>>> >
>>> >Uncomfortable laugh?
>>>
>>> C'mon Ric... The Cunliffe Snip?
>>
>>No idea what that is, I'm afraid.
>
> Please... The rather childish technique of trimming, or inserting a
> word into, a "quotation" to make it appear the poster said something
> they distinctly did not, for purposes humorous or more usually
> otherwise. It's was hackneyed in grade school, for most.
So hackneyed that it's something you've never done? (I wouldn't even bother
trying to deny that one, Mark - one of our first encounters was as a result
of you pulling a 'quotation' out of thin air.)
>
>>The fact is, you can't have it both ways when it comes to bringing the
>>sport into disrepute.
>
> Only by extremely simplistic analysis, I'm afraid.
No - that's the fact. If McLaren, as you insist, have to take responsibility
for Coughlan - even if they didn't know what he was up to, then Ferrari also
have to take responsibility for Stepney (or whoever). It's basic company
rules. (That's the clause in the Concorde Agreement too, apparently.)
>
>>Soon-to-be-convicted thief, snitch, trafficker of secret info, saboteur
>>and spy Nigel Stepney was, or wasn't, an employee of Ferrari?
>
> Indeed, and employee acting far outside the scope of his employ.
If, indeed it was Stepney (he, on the last account, still denies it).
So was Coughlan acting 'outside the scope of his employ'(ment).
>
>>Ferrari are, or aren't, to be considered responsible for and associated
>>with his
>>actions?
>
> No.
If you use the same reasoning as you use to conflate Coughlan's probable
guilt with his (almost certainly unknowing) employers, you have to assume
Ferrari are as culpable for Stepney's presumed actions.
The employers HAVE to take responsibility for any of their employees
actions, whatever the circumstances. That's your assertion. The same, then,
MUST apply to both employers.
Anything else really is having it both ways.
>
> Not when he acts outside the scope of his employ and certainly not
> when he acts in his own, diametrically opposed to, rather than company
> interests.
>
> It's settled law in most places, codified in the rest.
See above (though I think you'd have a hard time trying to get it through an
actual law court in this case - be it McLaren/Coughlan or Ferrari/Stepney
(or whoever) - on the currently available evidence).
>
>>Furthermore, is this the first time Ferrari have harboured
>>criminals in their midst, or not?
>
> ...Waiter, I didn't order any red herring.
Know your Ferrari history, Mark. You might even find it on Google.
--
Cheers,
Probert.