Ferrari dismiss Stepney/McLaren suspend Coughlan - Page 24

Knowlesy · 18 Jul 2007, 18:52 (Ref:1966766)

So let me get this straight.

This is all Jesus' fault?

Who is to blame next?

Marbot · 18 Jul 2007, 19:00 (Ref:1966776)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Saw this story earlier on Gazzetta, but resisted the temptation to post it, as it is pure speculation.
I don't believe these leaked claims.

Sorry,I couldn't resist (the voices in my head made me do it).

I don't believe the claims either,but it's all rather interesting nonetheless.

Marbot · 18 Jul 2007, 19:02 (Ref:1966781)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

So let me get this straight.

This is all Jesus' fault?

Who is to blame next?

I thought Jesus worked for Ferrari's R&D department?

davyboy · 18 Jul 2007, 19:19 (Ref:1966795)

So if he was told to destroy the papers by three different people at McLaren, why did he continue to retain them and then send dearest Trudy down to the local copyshop to copy them ?

They'll either decide that Coughlan's knowledge is McLaren's knowledge, in which case they're toast... or they'll decide he acted as a renegade, in which case they have a chance. The fact Martin Whitmarsh did or did not tell him to destroy them is irrelevant.

kartracer41 · 18 Jul 2007, 19:27 (Ref:1966804)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davyboy

So if he was told to destroy the papers by three different people at McLaren, why did he continue to retain them and then send dearest Trudy down to the local copyshop to copy them ?

They'll either decide that Coughlan's knowledge is McLaren's knowledge, in which case they're toast... or they'll decide he acted as a renegade, in which case they have a chance. The fact Martin Whitmarsh did or did not tell him to destroy them is irrelevant.

Coughlan=McLaren. He is in a position where his knowlege or product will effect performance. If he had been a janator, it might be a different story. I am afraid McLaren is screwed.

chillibowl · 18 Jul 2007, 20:00 (Ref:1966845)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davyboy

...The fact Martin Whitmarsh did or did not tell him to destroy them is irrelevant.

irrelevant in what regard? If you accept that Coughlan had spoken to Whitmarsh/ or other senior members of Mclaren about this, their failure to discipline him immediately can be seen as tacit approval about what was done or what was being attempted.

we may never get resolution on this, but certainly the teams should be aggressively acting against this type of behaviour, with at least internal disciplinary actions to discourage anyone else from trying it. the FIA can at least go after this.

davyboy · 18 Jul 2007, 20:07 (Ref:1966853)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillibowl

irrelevant in what regard? If you accept that Coughlan had spoken to Whitmarsh/ or other senior members of Mclaren about this, their failure to discipline him immediately can be seen as tacit approval about what was done or what was being attempted.

Coughlan is a very senior member of McLaren. If he has this type of information, then he can use it to advantage the team whether anyone else there knows that's happened or not. That's the essence of the wrongdoing. Disciplining Coughlan is an internal matter for the team, but it cannot undo what's been done from an external perspective. McLaren were advantaged, Ferrari were disadvantage.

... sorry I must qualify all of this by saying 'if you believe what we've been hearing'.

**Bononi** · 18 Jul 2007, 20:10 (Ref:1966856)

That's what is right to do, not what really will happen. Like it or not, Ferrari and Mclaren are in the same business, what is bad for one is not good for the other.

davyboy · 18 Jul 2007, 20:14 (Ref:1966861)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

That's what is right to do, not what really will happen. Like it or not, Ferrari and Mclaren are in the same business, what is bad for one is not good for the other.

You're spot on... and that's why Bernie and Max need to get Ron and Jean/Luca into a room and bang their heads together until this is resolved.

chillibowl · 18 Jul 2007, 20:49 (Ref:1966894)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davyboy

... sorry I must qualify all of this by saying 'if you believe what we've been hearing'.

haha, no need, i completely got that. really that tag line needs to be included in the thread title

there really is just so much speculation/articles going around that its impossible to form a proper opinion either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davyboy

...but it cannot undo what's been done from an external perspective. McLaren were advantaged, Ferrari were disadvantage..

true, and nothing can, but putting the involved parties in a room together and forcing them to hash out a deal only serves to reinforce all that is wrong with F1, the lack of transparency and a clear set of guidelines of what constitutes corporate responsibility in the world of F1.
what i find most astonishing about Coughlan's accusation is that he "claims" to have told people and no one seemed willing or able to do anything about it. if the roles were reversed, i find it hard to imagine Ferrari (or any other team for that matter) acting any differently than Mclaren have. as such i will have difficulty accepting any solution/sanction, nor can i believe that Ron and Jean/Luca are the right ones to get to the bottom of it...they are too much alike in their narrow views of protecting their own team as opposed to doing whats best for the sport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bononi

Like it or not, Ferrari and Mclaren are in the same business, what is bad for one is not good for the other.

totally, but these guys are not the ones to have the perspective to see that. their success comes from beating each other, apparently through any means necessary. F1 is the real loser here and by that i mean the fans and i for one am finding it harder and harder to explain to my non-F1 loving friends why i love this sport that is so constantly shrouded in mystery and scandal. its almost like defending religion and by that i mean Jebus!

Dutton · 18 Jul 2007, 20:55 (Ref:1966902)

All this kind of thing is part of the interest of F1 to me.

Alan Raine · 18 Jul 2007, 21:00 (Ref:1966911)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutton

All this kind of thing is part of the interest of F1 to me.

Total B*****s to me unfortunately

Knowlesy · 18 Jul 2007, 21:08 (Ref:1966919)

I like my interest on track.

This isn't supposed to be some crime novel. It's supposed to be a sport.

Dutton · 18 Jul 2007, 21:15 (Ref:1966929)

Whenever big business is at play this kind of thing is inevitable. It is certainly not desirable, but I can't help but find it interesting.

Marbot · 18 Jul 2007, 22:40 (Ref:1966976)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

I like my interest on track.

Agreed.I propose an immediate ban on pit stops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

This isn't supposed to be some crime novel. It's supposed to be a sport.

It's the same with every sport.In Football (soccer) we've recently had "Tevesgate".Cycling is basically a bunch of drug crazed suicidal two wheelers.In Cricket we've recently had the "Bob Woolmer" episode.And I understand that certain high profile personel are about to blow the lid on an up coming Tiddly Winks Championship drug/sex scandal.

**touringlegend** · 19 Jul 2007, 10:27 (Ref:1967291)

Golf's gonna be the next sport to have a drug scandal from what I understand !

Marbot · 19 Jul 2007, 10:34 (Ref:1967297)

McLaren rocked by further allegations!

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=32147

Oh,err....don't take it too seriously.

climb · 19 Jul 2007, 10:57 (Ref:1967316)

BTW: all of a sudden the media started talking about an "affidavit": could someone round here explain me what on Earth does that word means?

It seems the typical case of a lot of people people using a word whose meaning they don't know...

JohnMiller · 19 Jul 2007, 11:03 (Ref:1967322)

"A sworn statement of fact" - it comes from Latin IIRC.

strider · 19 Jul 2007, 11:06 (Ref:1967323)

In simple terms, an affidavit is a sworn statement. The person concerned makes a statement in writing and then goes along to a lawyer, signs it and swears in front of the lawyer that it is the truth and the lawyer then counter-signs it as confirmation.

ensign14 · 19 Jul 2007, 11:27 (Ref:1967344)

And the lawyer must not be involved with the case. (It can also be sworn before a commissioner for oaths.) You either swear holding a Bible (or Koran or similar religious work) or you affirm the truth - there's slightly different wording in the affidavit's jurat (bit giving details of how it was sworn/affirmed).

These days affidavits are rare, you just sign a witness statement with an assertion that you believe the facts are true. But they are mandatory in search order applications.

(Incidentally, the lawyer "swearing" the affidavit gets £5, plus £2 per exhibit to the affidavit. It's the closest we get to tips.)

Marbot · 19 Jul 2007, 11:36 (Ref:1967353)

There seems to be a lot of "swearing" going on.

JohnMiller · 19 Jul 2007, 11:42 (Ref:1967355)

That's what happens when you have to pay lawyers.

Marbot · 19 Jul 2007, 11:56 (Ref:1967366)

climb · 19 Jul 2007, 12:59 (Ref:1967418)

thanx mates

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Proceedings against Nigel Stepney	mogwai	Formula One	51	25 Jun 2007 22:22
Should Ralf be sacked	OZ_HCR32	Formula One	65	26 Jul 2005 21:11
Alzen sacked!!	V8moz	Touring Car Racing	14	25 Apr 2003 20:18
Why HHF was sacked	Chris Strange	Formula One	10	10 Aug 2001 23:12