Ferrari dismiss Stepney/McLaren suspend Coughlan - Page 13

Inigo Montoya · 11 Jul 2007, 17:10 (Ref:1960835)

Yup, its clogged for sure ensign, you don't need to tell me that

But I don't think it is unfair. And I have some firsthand experience with that

kartracer41 · 11 Jul 2007, 19:51 (Ref:1960962)

Here is the latest: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60720

Anyone want to translate that? lol

davyboy · 11 Jul 2007, 19:56 (Ref:1960967)

" Mike Coughlan has today provided Ferrari with an affidavit relating to relevant facts and Ferrari has agreed not to forward the affidavit to the Italian criminal authorities "

... but surely Ferrari cannot withhold the affidavit from the Italian criminal authorities... and now that this note has been released, the Italian criminal authorities will now ask for it.

TWRv12 · 11 Jul 2007, 20:43 (Ref:1961016)

Today's civil hearing was to be about Coughlan providing an affidavit, which if he gave it, could have damaged him in the Italian criminal case.

They may have traded droping Italian criminal procedings for cooperation in the civil case. Otherwise they may never have found out where the computer discs came from.

davyboy · 11 Jul 2007, 21:20 (Ref:1961044)

Can you chose to drop a criminal case ? Surely if its criminal, a crime has been committed in serious violation of the laws of the land and the matter is in the hands of the police ? For example, if an armed robbery occurs at a bank, the bank cannot chose to 'drop' the criminal case against the robbers can it ?

TWRv12 · 11 Jul 2007, 22:29 (Ref:1961118)

Quote:

Originally Posted by davyboy

Can you chose to drop a criminal case ? Surely if its criminal, a crime has been committed in serious violation of the laws of the land and the matter is in the hands of the police ? For example, if an armed robbery occurs at a bank, the bank cannot chose to 'drop' the criminal case against the robbers can it ?

Would it be possible if Ferrari withdraw the charge against him?

Marbot · 11 Jul 2007, 23:02 (Ref:1961136)

Ferrari getting their hands on a Mclaren P.C. should be interesting.Not that they'll find anything on it.....well,not now anyway.

Marbot · 12 Jul 2007, 11:01 (Ref:1961455)

Mclaren summoned to FIA hearing to answer charges.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60729

Emphasis on having "possession" of documents.

Suze · 12 Jul 2007, 11:07 (Ref:1961462)

According to the BBC website [here] somebody else at McLaren knew about Coughlan having the documents but it's not clear when he knew....

Marbot · 12 Jul 2007, 11:11 (Ref:1961473)

The problem now is that Since Trudy Coughlan got involved,people like Hairdressers,Gym teachers,Beauticians,Dog groomers and suchlike are now going to get dragged into this.

TWRv12 · 12 Jul 2007, 11:37 (Ref:1961490)

EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE
WORLD MOTOR SPORT COUNCIL
12.07.2007

Representatives of Vodafone McLaren Mercedes have been requested to appear before an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Thursday, July 26, 2007.

The team representatives have been called to answer a charge that between March and July 2007, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, including information that could be used to design, engineer, build, check, test, develop and/or run a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car.

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...120707-01.html

Inigo Montoya · 12 Jul 2007, 11:42 (Ref:1961494)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Mclaren summoned to FIA hearing to answer charges.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/60729

Emphasis on having "possession" of documents.

I don't see any emphasis in the FIA declaration.

This is getting very interesting. Will the FIA risk upsetting its fan base in the UK and punish McLaren? I doubt it.

ensign14 · 12 Jul 2007, 11:42 (Ref:1961496)

Question: if Coughlan had materials at home, does that mean McLaren had possession/custody/control...

It's a knotty legal issue. I think McLaren will evade punishment on the basis Coughlan was obviously "on a frolic of his own".

Inigo Montoya · 12 Jul 2007, 11:46 (Ref:1961500)

I hope that is what happens ensign, since I believe that this has to be the actions of a misguided man. But when your chief engineer has the documents, and the team manager (reportedly) knows about it, it doesn't look good, does it?

Another question for you lawyer type... Can McLaren take legal action against Coughlan for damaging their reputation, etc, if it turns out he was acting alone?

TWRv12 · 12 Jul 2007, 11:56 (Ref:1961506)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I don't see any emphasis in the FIA declaration.

This is getting very interesting. Will the FIA risk upsetting its fan base in the UK and punish McLaren? I doubt it.

If a team member is guilty of possession, McLaren are probably responsible for that person's actions.

UK fans, don't come into it. If McLaren are lucky, they might only lose all their constructor points and get a huge fine.

Inigo Montoya · 12 Jul 2007, 11:58 (Ref:1961509)

I think we can all agree that certain decisions by the FIA in the past have the "safer" route - to appease either Italian/Ferrari fans, or UK fans.

Red · 12 Jul 2007, 12:49 (Ref:1961545)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I don't see any emphasis in the FIA declaration.

This is getting very interesting. Will the FIA risk upsetting its fan base in the UK and punish McLaren? I doubt it.

Quote:

The team representatives have been called to answer a charge that between March and July 2007, in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes had unauthorised possession of documents and confidential information belonging to Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, including information that could be used to design, engineer, build, check, test, develop and/or run a 2007 Ferrari Formula One car

Please note that in FIA's press release not Coughlan "had unauthorised possession of documents" but "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes".

So far we know that Neale knew about that. So far we know that Coughlan provided Ferrari an affidavit which will not be disclosed publicly. One would be curious about it's contents...

ensign14 · 12 Jul 2007, 13:34 (Ref:1961585)

The FIA won't see the affidavit, I'm sure. Employers are vicariously liable for their employees' actions and Mike Coughlan did not enter the World Championship. But it should be easy enough for McLaren to demonstrate - if this is indeed the case - that Coughlan held them at home and they weren't in McLaren's control, so there would be no vicarious liability.

**Adam43** · 12 Jul 2007, 14:47 (Ref:1961640)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red

Please note that in FIA's press release not Coughlan "had unauthorised possession of documents" but "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes".

The FIA aren't going to investigate Coughlan. It is McLaren who have signed up and partake in an FIA series, not Coughlan. They want to investigate is what McLaren's involvement is, as invited to do so.

Are you sharpening your knives Red? You would be justified to do so after all those nasty things people had said about Ferrari.

Red · 12 Jul 2007, 14:52 (Ref:1961644)

They could have investigating them about the (mis)conduct of one (or two) of their employees, not being in "possession of unauthorised documents".

And yes, altough I could live without this mess I indeed reckon that I'm watching with extreme interest how the things unfold in this matter...

PS: AdamAshmore
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
The Road to Rouen

Posts: 20,000

Nice round number.

Marbot · 12 Jul 2007, 14:58 (Ref:1961648)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

I don't see any emphasis in the FIA declaration.

Simply by using that word in place of another emphasises what criterion the FIA are going to use to establish guilt or innocence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

This is getting very interesting. Will the FIA risk upsetting its fan base in the UK and punish McLaren? I doubt it.

So it's OK to turn a blind eye then.If it is proved that Mclaren had no part in this,then that is good.But if it is proved that they have acted incorrectly,then so be it,and they must stand the consequences.

We have heard RD at length stating that his team are innocent of all wrong doing.How can he be so sure?

johngee · 12 Jul 2007, 15:04 (Ref:1961653)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

We have heard RD at length stating that his team are innocent of all wrong doing.How can he be so sure?

I'm sure that RD would have made no statement without legal advice.......which would have been "Admit nothing and deny everything"

Marbot · 12 Jul 2007, 15:13 (Ref:1961657)

Quote:

Originally Posted by johngee

I'm sure that RD would have made no statement without legal advice.......which would have been "Admit nothing and deny everything"

Meanwhile,everyone else at the factory isn't speaking to him and Pasta,Raviolli and Spag-Bol are now on the canteen menu.

johngee · 12 Jul 2007, 15:22 (Ref:1961662)

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Pasta,Raviolli and Spag-Bol are now on the canteen menu.

That would have been included in the legal advice....as in 'don't'

....as would any admission of knowing who Ferrari are and where Italy is!

brands · 12 Jul 2007, 15:23 (Ref:1961663)

Surely the McLaren statement which broke this story:

Quote:

McLAREN RACING STATEMENT - 3 July 2007

Woking, United Kingdom, 3rd July 2007: McLaren became aware on the 3rd July 2007 that a senior member of its technical organisation was the subject of a Ferrari investigation regarding the receipt of technical information. The team has learnt that this individual had personally received a package of technical information from a Ferrari employee at the end of April.

Whilst McLaren has no involvement in the matter and condemns such actions it will fully co-operate with any investigation. The individual has in the meanwhile been suspended by the company pending a full and proper investigation of the matter

could be read as admitting the FIA charge, since there was a period of time when a senior McLaren employee, and therefore the Company, had procession of the data and also the mitigating circumstances...it was only him and a Ferrari employee involved in the affair. ?

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