Will Coughlan and Stepney be banned from motorsports?

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


I told you about Tony Dodgins. It went unchallenged. Enough for now.

You told us about Jeremy Clarkson too.

Originally posted by as65p


With close to a hundred posts a week, the time argument doesn't sound very credible, coming from you...

Academic life, summber break! I can't help it.

Don't mean I should try to have a following. Mclaren fans are a tough nut to crack, and I have no intentions to crack them. Each one has its own opinion, I respect that. I'm just defending mine as the most reasonable one.

Originally posted by Buttoneer


You told us about Jeremy Clarkson too.

Now you're being silly. You really want to have the last word? Quote this one and post something, it might make you feel good.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


Academic life, summber break! I can't help it.

Don't mean I should try to have a following. Mclaren fans are a tough nut to crack, and I have no intentions to crack them. Each one has its own opinion, I respect that. I'm just defending mine as the most reasonable one.

The "reliability" of McLaren fans is very high and so they don't break down too easily, especially this season.;)

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


I told you about Tony Dodgins. It went unchallenged. Enough for now.

I would contest that characterisation of Dodgins. How about another?

Originally posted by vsubravet


I think we tend to focus a bit more on the British media for obvious reasons (the home of the motorsport industry, atleast for F1) and English being the international language, the focus is very much on what the BRITISH MEDIA and the F1 English websites say or write about. I think if we were to sample the media in other languages, we should be able to get a fairly representative opinion. And even among the British media, not all are ganging up against Ferrari, I'm sure.

You're right on that count.

Also Autosport.com news items are generally unbiased, as it should be. But Autosport columninst often right from the British Audience perspective, which at best annoying. As you say, "english being the international language", and Britain having most manufacturers there...they should be more open minded. Too hard for them.

I agree with you, that's why the British press should make an extra effort to give an unbiased view of the news, but they can't help being parochial. For instace, to quote the above mentionend article by Tony Dodgins, first opening line of the article:


"McLaren are being put through the wringer at the moment and you have to feel sympathy. Well, maybe you
don't, but I do."

Can you be more parochial than that? Looks and the rest like the local parish sermon.

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/1159

Originally posted by vsubravet
More teams coming into F1 is always welcome for the sport. About FIA favouring the British manufacturers, I'd say they are more into the German, especially BMW, manufacturers.

Mercedes is what?

The Dodgins article is an op-ed piece in which the journo is expected to profess an opinion. It's not posing as a detached piece of news reportage, it is an argumentative piece and as such contains an argument. Consequently, as it does not disguise its nature, it is not an appropriate example of bias, which refers specifically to the surreptitious and conscious presentation of unbalanced viewpoints under the guise of objective news reportage.

Originally posted by wj_gibson


I would contest that characterisation of Dodgins. How about another?

Contest with no reason to back it up? Right. I'll give then M. Brundle collumn on the affair, totally soft on Mclaren, and Steve Matchett from SpeedTV (British guy, worked for Benetton in 95, I think). In this last race, he had something along these lines to say:"apparently now Ferrari will have to make for it on the track"...the list goes on and on...

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


You're right on that count.

Also Autosport.com news items are generally unbiased, as it should be. But Autosport columninst often right from the British Audience perspective, which at best annoying. As you say, "english being the international language", and Britain having most manufacturers there...they should be more open minded. Too hard for them.

I agree with you, that's why the British press should make an extra effort to give an unbiased view of the news, but they can't help being parochial. For instace, to quote the above mentionend article by Tony Dodgins, first opening line of the article:


"McLaren are being put through the wringer at the moment and you have to feel sympathy. Well, maybe you
don't, but I do."

Can you be more parochial than that? Looks and the rest like the local parish sermon.

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/1159

That's very much the author's opinion and again it is not representative of the entire spectrum of the British media; now, if Autosport were to print/publish some articles from the Italian/German/French media (translated, of course) we could get a bigger picture (?).
As a Ferrari fan, it is hard for you to accept the other view point (as it could possibly be for a McLaren fan, if the situation were reversed) in such a surcharged atmosphere but not all are marching to the same band.

Again, these are all opinion pieces in which the author states upfront that what they are presenting is a particular perspective. These authors are engaging in arguments, and presenting opinions that can be contested by others who enjoy intelligent and informed debate. The Brundle piece in particular is forthright, but it never strays into diatribe or into the invention of facts or chains of events. However, to counter Brundle would mean having a good piurchase on the facts of a case as we know them, and a capacity to argue against their presentation by Brundle, and not recourse to a catch-all explanation of bias, which is a lazy reaction to these pieces.

As I stated above, bias is a reference to an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of readers who are invariably dependent on reading news in order to garner information about particular cases through the presentation of particular viewpoints under the guise of objective reality. The cases you cite do not fall under that rubric. You might not like what they argue, but it is ineffective (and, IMO, unethical) to simply throw the "bias" card around as an effort to disqualify their content.

Originally posted by HP
Mercedes is what?

German? I was just pointing out that FIA or more specifically MM, nowadays (after the FIA-GPMA kiss-and-makeup) have got ears for BMW via Mr. Goeschel, than for British manufacturers (are there any British manufacturers left?).

Originally posted by wj_gibson
The Dodgins article is an op-ed piece in which the journo is expected to profess an opinion. It's not posing as a detached piece of news reportage, it is an argumentative piece and as such contains an argument. Consequently, as it does not disguise its nature, it is not an appropriate example of bias, which refers specifically to the surreptitious and conscious presentation of unbalanced viewpoints under the guise of objective news reportage.

You are wrong on that. You can write a biased editorial. As long as your facts are tainted, your opinion is tainted. Based on comon facts, you can write any opinion piece you want. But you cannot supppose that some unproven fact are true, or distort known facts, so as to prove your opinion.

There is a subltle difference.

Paul Krugman's column on the NYT times are famous for that. He is constantly accused of selecting quotes and distorted statistics to support his views in ways that are clearly over the top.

In the Tony Dodgins article, he implies that Ferrari is a hell to work for, and that would excuse Stepney's actions, while Ferrari was elected by an independent panel as the best place to work in Europe. He thinks there is evidence to suppose Stepney was framed by Ferrari:

"The F1 grapevine is fast-moving and it's unlikely that Stepney's dinner with Coughlan or his May 9 meeting with Fry remained secret for long. Within a week came rumours in the Italian media that Stepney had sabotaged the Ferraris pre-Monaco. White powder had allegedly been found around the fuel tanks. I'm not implying anything, merely stating the chronology."


Finally, after the FIA charges were public, he claims that: "I wasn't happy at the prospect of writing about the subject, knowing that there were machinations going on at Ferrari, and without any concrete evidence of wrongdoing by Coughlan, let alone McLaren."

FACT: Machinations going on at Ferrari. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE: "any wrongdoing by Coughlan, let alone Mclaren". Coughlan had confessed some wrongdoing, had he not? Why did Mclaren suspended Coughlan then? This guy is beyong belief!

Now can you claim such things as facts in an editorial?? WHy even mention Ferrari in this sentence? This is nothing but a cheap shot, my friend.

I add now: fact: Mcalren was found guilty of possessing said documents.


Do you still think this is merely an honest opinion piece, a fair editorial? Looked like a rant to me.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S

Steve Matchett from SpeedTV (British guy, worked for Benetton in 95, I think). In this last race, he had something along these lines to say:"apparently now Ferrari will have to make for it on the track"

This is a simple truth and certainly not evidence of bias.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S



You are wrong on that. You can write a biased editorial. As long as your facts are tainted, your opinion is tainted. Based on comon facts, you can write any opinion piece you want. But you cannot supppose that some unproven fact are true, or distort known facts, so as to prove your opinion.

There is a subltle difference.

Paul Krugman's column on the NYT times are famous for that. He is constantly accused of selecting quotes and distortes statistics to support his view in ways that are over the top.

In the Tony Dodgins article, he implies that Ferrari is a hell to work for, and that would excuse Stepney's actions, while Ferrari was elected by an independent panel as the best place to work in Europe. He thinks there is evidence to suppose Stepney was framed by Ferrari.

"The F1 grapevine is fast-moving and it's unlikely that Stepney's dinner with Coughlan or his May 9 meeting with Fry remained secret for long. Within a week came rumours in the Italian media that Stepney had sabotaged the Ferraris pre-Monaco. White powder had allegedly been found around the fuel tanks. I'm not implying anything, merely stating the chronology."

Finally, after the FIA charges were public, he claims that: "I wasn't happy at the prospect of writing about the subject, knowing that there were machinations going on at Ferrari, and without any concrete evidence of wrongdoing by Coughlan, let alone McLaren."

FACT: Machinations going on at Ferrari. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE: "any wrongdoing by Coughlan, let alone Mclaren". Coughlan had confessed some wrongdoing, had he not? Why did Mclaren suspended Coughlan then? This guy is beyong belief!

Now can you claim such things as facts in an editorial?? WHy even mention Ferrari in this sentence? This is nothing but a cheap shot, my friend.

I add now: fact: Mcalren was found guilty of possessing said documents.


Do you still think this is merely an honest opinion piece, a fair editorial? Looked like a rant to me.

In the first case, an editorial and an op-ed piece are two entirely different things and we should be quite clear on that. An editorial is usually taken as the view that the publication as a whole takes on the matter in question; an op-ed is specifically the view of one author acting independently. And this piece is Dodgins' own and he presents his views accordingly. The "machinations" he refers to is merely the legal case against Stepney that was launched well before "Coughlan-gate"; all he is simply noting (IMO) is the difficulty of writing about the entire affair at a point where it was only really emerging, and in which all kinds of insinuations were beginning to fly around the paddock. Coughlan had not (and has still not) confessed to any wrongdoing, at least not in those terms (i.e. admitting guilt).

We know that McLaren was technically found in possession of said documents (simply on the employer liability issue), but the ruling of the WMSC was that no one else in the organisation made any use of them, or even (to the best of the evidence at any rate) had knowledge of their content. You will note that the WMSC ruling does not actually use the word "guilty" anywhere in its text, so let's be careful about asserting "facts" ourselves, shall we?

Now - the Brundle piece?

Originally posted by wj_gibson

Now - the Brundle piece?

It's here, wj.

Looks like a very well argued and cogent piece of work to me. In particular, the ambiguities and grey areas it brings to the fore are commendable at a time when there is the inevitable pressure to retreat to simplistic (and emotionally charged) dichotomies such as cheating/not cheating, which is not really an appropriate means of gaining purchase on the intricacies of this case.

Originally posted by wj_gibson


In the first case, an editorial and an op-ed piece are two entirely different things and we should be quite clear on that. An editorial is usually taken as the view that the publication as a whole takes on the matter in question; an op-ed is specifically the view of one author acting independently. And this piece is Dodgins' own and he presents his views accordingly. The "machinations" he refers to is merely the legal case against Stepney that was launched well before "Coughlan-gate"; all he is simply noting (IMO) is the difficulty of writing about the entire affair at a point where it was only really emerging, and in which all kinds of insinuations were beginning to fly around the paddock. Coughlan had not (and has still not) confessed to any wrongdoing, at least not in those terms (i.e. admitting guilt).

We know that McLaren was technically found in possession of said documents (simply on the employer liability issue), but the ruling of the WMSC was that no one else in the organisation made any use of them, or even (to the best of the evidence at any rate) had knowledge of their content. You will note that the WMSC ruling does not actually use the word "guilty" anywhere in its text, so let's be careful about asserting "facts" ourselves, shall we?

Now - the Brundle piece?

Well, fist as for the word "guilty": "The WMSC is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of article 151c of the International Sporting Code".

You're right, the word is "breach" , which means "break a law", transgress, offend, infract, violate, go against, break. My mistake... Mclaen was not found guilty of possessing stolen documents, it simply "was in possession" of them...

The op-ed piece cannot be a piece of rant, it is only the personal view of the individual. It should be based on fact, not on distorted facts. That's what I said, and I stand by it.

Coughlan had already been found with documents at his home by the time he wrote the article, in fact, he wrote just before the FIA hearing week. FIA had already charged Mclaren. So how can he say there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

Oh yeah, maybe to you FIA charges were gratuituous and based on nothing...

As I said, I can't help you to see right in front of you.

And the Brundle piece? You asserted that one was of the same order, did you not?

Originally posted by Buttoneer

This is a simple truth and certainly not evidence of bias.

Cheap shot. Ferrari wanted first and foremost reparations, as it is common in the justice system. An unfair advantage, if proven to exist, must be repaired.

Although many fan called for points deduction, or a ban (I myself favored a huge fine), this view cannot be attributed to Ferrari.

I can't argue with your cheap shots, man. You're too much of a Mclaren fan boy. Welcome to my ignore list.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S
Steve Matchett from SpeedTV (British guy, worked for Benetton in 95, I think)...In this last race, he had something along these lines to say:"apparently now Ferrari will have to make for it on the track"...the list goes on and on...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that Matchett quote you cite. Could you clarify that one?

Originally posted by EvilPhil II


I dont think so mate. At least there drivers have always been free to race each other within reason.

wow u r a touchy mac fan eh, but just not sure...."within reason"...guess we will see bout that huh...put it it in another post "mate"

Originally posted by wj_gibson
And the Brundle piece? You asserted that one was of the same order, did you not?

Oh, it is better than Dodgins, but not by much.

For instance, I'd mention he is following the Mclaren line when he refers to Stepney as the "whistleblower". But he was just a spy, an informant, as Todt noted in his interview. A whistleblower is:

"A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action."

But this definition does not apply to Stepney for three reasons:

1. Mclaren is not the authority responsible to enforce sporting behaviour;
2. Ferrari's floor was legal;
3. Mclaren didn't protest the floor thereafter, simply showed plans to build a similar one, demonstrating intent to use stolen information to its own advantage.

Brundle should know this, and present a more impartial view, IMHO. He should have said "Ferrari, on the other hand, claims that...". Nope.

Predictably, he also compares the issue to lesser cases, saying its common practice in F1 to spy, minimizing the issue at hand. No wonde FIA was soft, there was not much to be seen.

Just the "idiot's guide to build and test, etc. a Ferrari F2007 car". Nothing really.

Originally posted by wj_gibson


I'm sorry, but I don't understand that Matchett quote you cite. Could you clarify that one?

No, I can't. That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
What I would like to FIA to do, is not neccesarily bann Coughlan and Stepney from motorsports, but formulate a kind of moral code how the knowledge-race between F1 teams should be run.

I think very few posters on Atlas, for example, feel that Coughlans posession of the 780 plus pages about the Ferrari was within the normal and moral realms of F1. However, suppose we would found out that Honda would hire photographers to covertly take pictures of Ferrari F1 cars at Fiorano? Is that considered to be normal and moral conduct? How about members of F1 teams tipping of other teams, just about the legality for instance, of one special component?

I feel rather puzzled by these questions, because I have discovered that unconsciously, I always assumed espionage was in a way ingrained in F1. The Coughlan-case showed me that ultimately, espionage can lead to real cases of betrayal, and criminal acts, even.

The basic question for mei is: In F1 you try to find out what the other guys are doing, and you should. But where do you draw the line?

I think steptow and coughman showed us the line in no uncertain terms. takin pics is a game. I have been there inocently and told to put the camera away. what these guys did was a level we so far havent known and as far as i am concerned we dont want in the sport. If you want that lets just hire some ex cia and kgb people and turn the sport into some mind game. May as well sack all the drivers and just read the latest crap on how ferrari bugged paragon and vv...exchange engineers on a bridge and trade on car pursuits and threats on wives and kids for a few bucks...yeh great sport huh

Originally posted by wj_gibson
The Dodgins article is an op-ed piece in which the journo is expected to profess an opinion. It's not posing as a detached piece of news reportage, it is an argumentative piece and as such contains an argument. Consequently, as it does not disguise its nature, it is not an appropriate example of bias, which refers specifically to the surreptitious and conscious presentation of unbalanced viewpoints under the guise of objective news reportage.

Your attempt to exonerate Tony Dodgins and co. reached to the point of re-defining the word 'bias'.

bias
3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice

I am not british and do not like ferrari come to think of it I don't like anything italian, I used to but my first Italian lover; beautiful, innocent looking and middle class but she gave me a terrible dose of clap! there I believe lies my deep distrust of anything italian.

Well, I have to leave the office for a more pressing appointment than this, but it startles me that these journos have managed to get under the thin skin of certain contributors here to such devastating effect. Maybe they really do have the power to move others.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


No **** sherlock...that was my point about "anedotal evidence". Do you know what this means? It means it is not scientific, and it is not necessarily the personal view of the one who annouces it, me or Clarkson.





Clarkson joke was meant for an audience. It would make no sense otherwise. By saying that no self respect British would forgo an Aston for a Ferrari, it does not mean Clarkson himself agrees with that, in fact, he could be seen as criticizing a widely popular view: "Why don't you buy British, whenever you can?"

All my British friends buy Triumph, and their first argument is aways: "First of all it is good enough and it is British, need I say more?"


Dear God...

look I adore clarkson for his great british sense of humour but you have to admit that british jurnos will always support whats left of a great motoring history and industry. For my whole entire life though (ok some 40 years of reading motoring mags like they were text books) I had to endure the british press mostly voting for brit cars over euros or any other, even when it was blatantly obvious they were inferior. and where did this get them? in the end most of the most famous names are now foreign owned....so who was telling a big fib then?

Originally posted by wj_gibson

And this piece is Dodgins' own and he presents his views accordingly. The "machinations" he refers to is merely the legal case against Stepney that was launched well before "Coughlan-gate";

OMG. What an amazing interpretation.

machination
Function: noun
1 : an act of machinating
2 : a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end "backstage machinations...that have dominated the film industry -- Peter Bogdanovich"

Originally posted by polaris


look I adore clarkson for his great british sense of humour but you have to admit that british jurnos will always support whats left of a great motoring history and industry. For my whole entire life though (ok some 40 years of reading motoring mags like they were text books) I had to endure the british press mostly voting for brit cars over euros or any other, even when it was blatantly obvious they were inferior. and where did this get them? in the end most of the most famous names are now foreign owned....so who was telling a big fib then?

I second that.

Originally posted by kyriakos75


OMG. What an amazing interpretation.

machination
Function: noun
1 : an act of machinating
2 : a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end "backstage machinations...that have dominated the film industry -- Peter Bogdanovich"

Thanks...spot on!

Originally posted by Buttoneer


Interestingly, a German of Austrian descent killed six million Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and disabled people some sixty-odd years ago. Surely evidence of the fact that Michael Schumacher is a serial killer?

Do you see how ridiculous these statements are? Where do the opinions of all the British Ferrari fans sit with you? Are they just all liars and fair-weather fans who are just waiting for the chance to denigrate Todt and his team? The British journalists who have clearly stated how wrong they believe the FIA ruling was? I'm guessing that they must be wrong too.

You need to step away from the keyboard and take a little breather.

Originally posted by polaris

what these guys did was a level we so far havent known and as far as i am concerned we dont want in the sport. If you want that lets just hire some ex cia and kgb people and turn the sport into some mind game.

Coudn't agree more!

Originally posted by vsubravet


Not quite true about that bit. I can state confidently that F1 is increasing its presence in Asia, especially India. I can't give you the exact numbers but I'd be very surprised if there are less than 50 million F1 fans today in India; 5 years ago it'd been about 1-2 million and that is stretching it a bit. And a lot of F1 fans, in India, are Ferrari/MS fans but there are growing number of McLaren fans too - courtesy, FA and LH.

Lets just paint a scene where all the teams currently based in the UK move to say the middle east. No taxes, no planning restrictions, lots of new testing tracks, freetrade zones, and a **** load of money....how would you feel then? no motor industry in the uk at all!....who cares about history. silverstone? turn it into an organic nursery. is that better? I think the brit motor sport, motor anything tide is turning and the biased jurnos could be put to blame for this sentiment along with alot of other things

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S

Cheap shot. Ferrari wanted first and foremost reparations, as it is common in the justice system. An unfair advantage, if proven to exist, must be repaired.

Although many fan called for points deduction, or a ban (I myself favored a huge fine), this view cannot be attributed to Ferrari.

I can't argue with your cheap shots, man. You're too much of a Mclaren fan boy. Welcome to my ignore list.

I'm really quite proud of being on Sphere's ignore list. I'd like to thank my Mother and Father, without whom none of this would be possible, and of course God who has given me the ability to confound and frustrate purveyors of victim politics. Man.

To those few left who don't yet have me on their ignore lists, I'll just say that I don;t believe there is any inherent bias in Matchets statement of "apparently now Ferrari will have to make for it on the track" (sic). Maybe it is possible to read some sense of glee in that if you really tried hard. Or you could just read it as a statement that Ferrari simply needs to go out and give it their everything. Beware if you agree though - you'll end up on Spheres ignore list.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


You're right on that count.

Also Autosport.com news items are generally unbiased, as it should be. But Autosport columninst often right from the British Audience perspective, which at best annoying. As you say, "english being the international language", and Britain having most manufacturers there...they should be more open minded. Too hard for them.

I agree with you, that's why the British press should make an extra effort to give an unbiased view of the news, but they can't help being parochial. For instace, to quote the above mentionend article by Tony Dodgins, first opening line of the article:


"McLaren are being put through the wringer at the moment and you have to feel sympathy. Well, maybe you
don't, but I do."

Can you be more parochial than that? Looks and the rest like the local parish sermon.

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/1159

Nonsense! Pro-McLaren maybe but nothing to do with that team being British (it has a strong german and Kiwi flavour in any case) - not everyone sees the world in such simplistic terms as you clearly do.

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


You talk as if I take this out of these forum, or my own head. FIA itself stated that:

"But if it is found in the future that the Ferrari information has been used to the detriment of the championship, we reserve the right to invite Vodafone McLaren Mercedes back in front of the WMSC where it will face the possibility of exclusion from not only the 2007 championship but also the 2008 championship."

So this was not a "rumor". If in the future somebody (could be desperate Coughlan) somehow find a way to prove Mclaren used the information, they are banned. Excluded, history. Not that I believe that this will happen, but I bet is better than anything you can remotely produce. Do you think FIA would ban Ferrari for Schumacher's antics? Or for team orders? Oh, wait, Mclaren was cought on tape doing that too...hummm

So tell me if somethig close to this EVER happened to Ferrari? You can't.

Now how can you compare the two?





You talk as if Schumacher as the only reason why Ferrari was so dominant. Ferrari has a long story before Schuimacher, my friend. Of course it was vital to have the arguably the best driver ever to drive your cars, but Todt himself once said that if it were not for Schumacher, Barrichello could have taken the 2004 WDC.

You confuse both for your own convenience. Maybe you like that state of mind.

There are medicines to cure that though.

Logic chopping of the highest order - Bravo.

Again, where is the hard evidence that McLaren came close to any sanction higher than they actually got? I'm well aware what the FIA said, I just don't make the same fantastical leaps that you do.

As for Scumacher, I will say again he is a big part of the reason people do not like Ferrari. I never said anything about his dominance, that was you and I have no idea why you mention that. Stuff like Monaco last year and Jerez 1997 put people off him and the team regardless of the fact he is a pretty good driver.

The FIA have warned against working with Nigel Stepney:

"As a matter of good order, the FIA recommends to its licensees that they do not professionally collaborate with Mr Stepney without conducting appropriate due diligence regarding his suitability for involvement in international motor sport."

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/65545

Will that mean that he'll be fired from his new job at Gigawave who are competing with a Aston Martin DBR9 in the FIA GT championship this year?

Also I am curious if such a kind of Berufsverbot would be legal according to national or European law? (not that the FIA would care about that).

Poor Nigel now he has Ferrari, the italian magistrate Tibis and the FIA after him.