Why did Ferrari receive no punishment in "spygate"?

[Born Racer]

I couldn't find an existing thread on this. Mods, feel free to merge with another thread if you see fit, but occasionally I've seen this asked and no response given, so I didn't want the question getting lost amidst the general discussion on "spygate" as it's called.

What are the circumstances that enabled McLaren to be punished due to having Ferrari data due to one of their employees, but Ferrari not to be punished for having one of their employees instigate the act? Is it because it is not against the rules for an employee to release such data, but it is against the rules to receive it?

[duke_toaster]

Because the FIA actually stands for Ferrari International Assistance.

[Marbot]

Because it's better to give than receive.

[willb]

i thought this was covered pretty thoroughly in the stepneygate thread. however, if the fia were to pursue punishing ferrari because of stepney then mclaren would also face punishment because of their employee taking information to renault.

[FPV GTHO]

Ferrari were the victims. Whilst theres laws to say teams like McLaren and Renault should be held accountable of roque employees gaining information to illegaly find performance gain, theres no laws to say teams like Ferrari should be responsible for their employees passing that information on. Surely, the lost information would be punishment enough to Ferrari in this case. I'd personally hope most would see punishing Ferrari in cases such as this as more farcical than $100m fines.

[JeremySmith]

This subject was discussed here..

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...ht=Stepneygate

[Born Racer]

The problem there though Jeremy is that it became a huge thread that many people wouldn't have the time to sift through to find the relevant discussion point. It is also now closed, so I thought it merits its own thread to keep the discussion on topic.

[Marbot]

Happy reading Born Racer.

[Born Racer]

theres no laws to say teams like Ferrari should be responsible for their employees passing that information on

Perhaps there should be. After all, Ferrari (i.e. a Ferrari employee- a representative of Ferrari) initiated the action that led to McLaren's illegal posession of that data. Another way of looking at it, if you like, is to say that Ferrari assisted McLaren's cheating. Crazy of course, but if it only takes 1 member of a team to bring a team down you could say that Stepney did likewise to Ferrari what Coughlan did to McLaren.

An additional aspect, and probably an alternative way of looking at it to my previous point, is that Stepney stole Ferrari information. Here I an thus seperating Stepney from the larger entity of Ferrari, and yet because he worked for them, Ferrari committed something illegal as well. (illegal in the sense of the law rather than the sporting law or regulations.)

[willb]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Perhaps there should be. After all, Ferrari (i.e. a Ferrari employee- a representative of Ferrari) initiated the action that led to McLaren's illegal posession of that data. Another way of looking at it, if you like, is to say that Ferrari assisted McLaren's cheating. Crazy of course, but if it only takes 1 member of a team to bring a team down you could say that Stepney did likewise to Ferrari what Coughlan did to McLaren.

An additional aspect, and probably an alternative way of looking at it to my previous point, is that Stepney stole Ferrari information. Here I an thus seperating Stepney from the larger entity of Ferrari, and yet because he worked for them, Ferrari committed something illegal as well. (illegal in the sense of the law rather than the sporting law or regulations.)

but then you would have to say that mclaren assisted renault's cheating and that mclaren would have done something illegal in the sense of the law.
this sort of thing happens in the high tech world too. when an employee steals technical data, plans, etc from their company, the company that the data was stolen from is not found to have done anything illegal, but the company that accepted the stolen information is sued and is often fined millions of dollars. there have been a lot of cases in silicon valley and other places where this has happened or a company has been sued for infringing on someone elses patent.

[Gt_R]

Ferrari ought to be punished. No way can we leave one team sink in the mud, now that renault has managed to jump clear from dirt.

Anyway, while Mike is "the rogue employee" who opened the gates, there were this driver, this senior management and this senior engineer who jumped in to drag Mclaren down.

And i'm not too sure Mclaren will enjoy being punished (again) for their "employee" who assisted Renault to cheat, which according to your theory they will also be 'guilty' of?

Probably you'd see the logic in this ?

Quote; "I'd personally hope most would see punishing Ferrari in cases such as this as more farcical than $100m fines."

Yupps.

[Born Racer]

but then you would have to say that mclaren assisted renault's cheating

And indeed I would. However, Renault were not even punished so in this case McLaren shouldn't be either.

Probably you'd see the logic in this ?

I do. Perhaps I should've mentioned the same would apply to Renault, but we're not specifically discussing that one (because of the ridiculous fact that Renault went unpunished).

[Gt_R]

But if we want to argue the validity of punishing a team for them having their information stolen by an employee, then we'd expect that Ferrari should be punished for Nigel's misdeed and Mclaren for their ex-employee-to-Renault's misdeed, or not, and that would be regardless of whether Mclaren and Renault are punished for their possession or use of Ferrari and Mclaren's data respectively.

You can't seperate Mclaren's "initiated the action" from Ferrari's "initiated the action" simply from the basis that in the other case, Mclaren was punished for possession whereas Renault wasn't.

Unless, what we want to say is that since Mclaren is punished in spygate, then we need to find a way to punish other parties just for parity's sake.

So going through one big circle, the bottom line is that it would be ridiculous to punish any team simply on the basis that somebody had stolen information from them. I doubt any teams will intend to let information be stolen.

But i believe many on this forum may well disagree and adopt the thinking that Ferrari ought to be held accountable for Nigel's misdeeds, and for exposing the misdeeds that consequently take place within Mclaren.

[Born Racer]

But am I not right in thinking that Renault were 'officially' found 'guilty'? (Yet no punishment was handed to them because it couldn't be proved they'd 'used' the data- what constitutes using? Is seeing not enough? After all, McLaren never got as far as actively using the data. They would have done. But from what I read of the transcripts, they never got as far as that before the whole thing was exposed),

But if Renault weren't punished, then McLaren certainly shouldn't punished for their employee bringing the information to Renault.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

But if Renault weren't punished, then McLaren certainly shouldn't punished for their employee bringing the information to Renault.

Totally agree.

But what can we do about it ?

[MacMan]

nothing

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

But if Renault weren't punished, then McLaren certainly shouldn't punished for their employee bringing the information to Renault.

As far as I know,McLaren haven't been punished for this.Or have I missed something?

To my knowledge they have only been punished for receiving and intending to use information from Ferrari.

[Born Racer]

No, they haven't. I was talking hypothetically, based on the impression I got from Gt_R that he thought that I would think McLaren shouldn't be punished for the Renault spygate, whilst I wondered exactly what it was that stopped Ferrari being punished for the McLaren spygate. Based on this:

And i'm not too sure Mclaren will enjoy being punished (again) for their "employee" who assisted Renault to cheat, which according to your theory they will also be 'guilty' of?

Whereas if Ferrari were punished for the McLaren spygate, in this instance McLaren shouldn't be punished for the Renault spygate due to the fact that although Renault were found guilty, they weren't punished.

I feel like I've just said 'punished' a lot.

[Gt_R]

Maybe that's what we call a witch hunt. *alert the lawyers*

Simply, i'm saying that whether a team should be held accountable for having their information stolen is independent on whether the other party who stole is punished or not, for it is a legal breach, it will be seen as such on its own.

i used 'stole' loosely here, not meaning really steal, because i thought "borrowed" will sound strange.

[willb]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

No, they haven't. I was talking hypothetically, based on the impression I got from Gt_R that he thought that I would think McLaren shouldn't be punished for the Renault spygate, whilst I wondered exactly what it was that stopped Ferrari being punished for the McLaren spygate. Based on this:

Whereas if Ferrari were punished for the McLaren spygate, in this instance McLaren shouldn't be punished for the Renault spygate due to the fact that although Renault were found guilty, they weren't punished.

I feel like I've just said 'punished' a lot.

please see my post about what happens with high tech companies. the same applies with any business. if an employee steals their company's information or physical property, only the employee is quilty of the crime, not the company. if another company ends up in possession of that stolen information or property, they can be subject to a major lawsuit.
for example, lets say that you are an employee working at a jewelry store. now lets say you stole one of the diamond rings from that store and sold it to a pawn shop. what would happen is that you would face criminal prosecution, the pawn shop would be required to return the stolen merchandise, and if the pawn shop was found to have knowingly accepted stolen merchandise and had not contacted the authorities immediately the pawn shop would face criminal prosecution. in no circumstances would the jewelry store face any sort of criminal prosecution even though it was one of their employees who stole the diamond ring.
now lets replace the pawn shop with mclaren, the jewelry store with ferrari, and the employee with stepney. that is why ferrari would not face any punishment for stepneygate and mclaren would not face any punishment for what happened with renault.
note: this does not condone the degree of punishment that mclaren received.

[Osella]

...doesn't the confusion arise from Ferrari's running an illegal car and Stepney blowing the whistle on them (compounded by his umbrage at being passed over for promotion)?

[Kempi]

The information was stolen. As in "not a willful act" by any of the Ferrari organization other than the actual person who stole the information.

On McLaren side, the information was willfully received and used (by more than one person, fwiw).

Get the picture?

It's like saying that if you have a person that works in your house nicking your silverware you have to be punished. I have heard of no legal system in which that is the case. However, almost all legal systems punish the thief as well as the person who buys from the thief.

[Adam43]

I'll add my voice to the why should Ferrari be punished. They may have hammered the victim stance, but they didn't chose to release the secrets. It is one of their (ex-)employees that is guilty.

[JohnSSC]

What GT_R said!

Sure! Punish Ferrari for not having "control" of their employees! In fact, let's carry that over to day-to-day life:

Let' say your mum hires someone to work for her in her home. They steal her TV. they sell it to someone to buy drugs. During the deal to sell the TV, someone is killed. Using the "punish whoever for not controlling their employees idea" the logical outcome should be that she is punished for the murder seeing as how she could not control her employee. After all, she "allowed" him to steal her property by not having the appropriate controls in place which resulted in a death while selling it.

So what should her punishment be? Accessory to murder? String 'er up!

[BootsOntheSide]

Or punish Ford every time someone uses a Transit van to rob a warehouse?

Logically, Ferrari can't be punished for something which was beyond their control, and which they didn't directly benefit from (they benefitted from the FIA's ruling, but there was no guarantee of that happening).