Jump to content


Photo

What if it goes to the FIA World Motor Sport Council?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,256 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:13

So let's assume the FIA decide to take the McLaren thing further and take it to the World Motor Sport Council (I hope they don't, but let's presume). What will happen to them?

a) Nothing
b) Hefty fine
c) Exclusion/ban from several races
d) Exclusion from the 2009 championship
e) Other

I can't see it going here, but if it did, I hope only a small fine would occur... a hefty fine, even on McLaren, in these economic times would hurt them. I seriously doubt we'd see exclusions because that would continue to hurt the sport's image.

Advertisement

#2 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:16

Originally posted by D.M.N.
So let's assume the FIA decide to take the McLaren thing further and take it to the World Motor Sport Council (I hope they don't, but let's presume). What will happen to them?

a) Nothing
b) Hefty fine
c) Exclusion/ban from several races
d) Exclusion from the 2009 championship
e) Other

I can't see it going here, but if it did, I hope only a small fine would occur... a hefty fine, even on McLaren, in these economic times would hurt them. I seriously doubt we'd see exclusions because that would continue to hurt the sport's image.


a) Nothing

Other drivers/teams have directly lied/tried to decieve the FIA in the past and nothing has happened, and at the end on the day this has all been blown up out of proportion IMO.

#3 brunopascal

brunopascal
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:17

f) hanged, drawn and quartered....the only sensible thing really ;)

Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.

#4 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 5,031 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:23

Well you could so some research and prempt the resposnse if required from the WMSC, what article did McLaren just breach? What was the caveat or probation limitations on the last breach by McLaren. If any of those dots connect, McLaren could be in the poo big time.

I hope not! As this is a trivial matter IMO.

#5 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:25

Originally posted by brunopascal
f) hanged, drawn and quartered....the only sensible thing really ;)

Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.


Where is the crucify option?

#6 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,983 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:25

Originally posted by Mika Mika


a) Nothing

Other drivers/teams have directly lied/tried to decieve the FIA in the past and nothing has happened, and at the end on the day this has all been blown up out of proportion IMO.


Massively blown out of proportion.
While we can all agree mistakes have been made (well according to what has been published), the whole paddock and especially the FIA acts "holier than thou" while we all know that they have as many if not even more dead bodies buried ...

#7 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:28

Is there a way the fans can DQ the FIA for lying and misleading us so often?

#8 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:34

I can't see Mosley letting this one go, I expect a hefty fine at the very least. I wouldn't put it past them to put McLaren on -10 WCC points.

senna da silva, damn right!

#9 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:36

Originally posted by brunopascal
Seriously, I think it would be ridiculous to go further.


Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.

#10 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,983 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:44

Originally posted by primer


Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.


Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.
:rolleyes:

Never read an apology by either ...

#11 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,449 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:46

Originally posted by primer


Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.


Yawn. :rolleyes:

#12 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:49

Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?

#13 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:52

Originally posted by peroa


Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.
:rolleyes:

Never read an apology by either ...


Indeed, which is why I doubt it'll ever go further. There is prior presidance.

#14 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:53

Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?


Looking back, it doesn't look like they were given any suspended penalties (might be wrong but can't find anything)

#15 gincarnated

gincarnated
  • Member

  • 445 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:54

D for the fallout!

I wonder what McLaren would do. No concorde agreement and all.

#16 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:58

Well, the FIA seem to have implied that further penalties may be against mclaren, rather than hamilton himself partially because of his actions (ie the press conference) but obviously race bans/being thrown out of the championship would effectively be penalising hamilton as well, as he wouldn't be able to drive the car anyway

#17 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:59

Originally posted by gincarnated
D for the fallout!

I wonder what McLaren would do. No concorde agreement and all.


Probably go legal and take the FIA to civil court...
As i say there is prior presidance...

#18 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 April 2009 - 18:59

Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?

No don't think so but if there was a suspended penalty from back then, this would exactly be the kind of offense to bring a penalty into effect.

Don't think this needs to go any further although slapping a suspended penalty on McLaren might do some good.

Maybe a "pull this sh*t 1 more time and you're out of the championship" kind of penalty hanging over their lying heads would force a break with the culture of deceit and cheating that now prevails at Paragon.

#19 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:05

Originally posted by stevvy1986


Looking back, it doesn't look like they were given any suspended penalties (might be wrong but can't find anything)

Yup, agree that it doesn't look like there was anything. The 2nd WMSC decision gave no such penalty and that was the final decision.

So this one should be judged individually.

JPW - agree that a suspended penalty of some kind might not be a bad call here.

Having said that, as others have mentioned, it's happened before with no penalty whatsoever. So even the DQ could be argued to be laying it on a bit thick, let alone anything on top of that.

Advertisement

#20 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:13

Originally posted by Gareth
Having said that, as others have mentioned, it's happened before with no penalty whatsoever. So even the DQ could be argued to be laying it on a bit thick, let alone anything on top of that.


Excatly my point a DQ is actually harsh. In 2006 Schumacher even got points in that race and he and the whole Ferrari Senior managment effectivly deliebretly lied to try and spoil more than 1 person race...

This has been blown up because it's Hamilton and McMerc.

#21 brunopascal

brunopascal
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:15

Originally posted by primer


Whitmarsh lied yesterday, when he definitely should have known better. I hope 'it goes further'.


I might have missed smth, but Whitmarsh never lied to questions asked by the FIA or stewards during some kind of hearing, so they have nothing to punish him for. Lying to the press on the other hand happens every weekend I guess...

But ok, perhaps they could decide Lewis should be punished further for lying or perjury if they see it fit. I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened after all... I just hope not because he already got disqualified and thus lost 4th place, I think it's enough.

Btw, wasn't Villeneuve threatened with some kind of penalty in 1996 or 1997 for contemptuous behavior in front of the FIA by dressing or expressing himself improperly?

#22 HaPe

HaPe
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:16

Originally posted by peroa
Heh, I called for Todt`s and MS`s head in Monaco, hmm, didn`t get it though ...
Grid penalty was awesome.

You cant compare the "crime".

If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.

HaPe

#23 inca_roads

inca_roads
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:21

Would someone remind me what punishment Benetton got in 94 for the fuel rig thing? I'm not stirring trouble, I genuinely can't remember.

#24 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:23

Originally posted by inca_roads
Would someone remind me what punishment Benetton got in 94 for the fuel rig thing? I'm not stirring trouble, I genuinely can't remember.


they had to pay either a $10 or take a chance

#25 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,983 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:25

Originally posted by HaPe

You cant compare the "crime".

If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.

HaPe


Politely disagree!

They both lied? Yes?
They both brought the sport into disrepute? Yes?

Because, dear HaPe, that will be the accusation of the FIA if it goes any further.

In that sense it`s the same.

#26 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:30

Originally posted by Gareth
JPW - agree that a suspended penalty of some kind might not be a bad call here.

Actually at first I was thinking this doesn't need a follow-up at the WMSC because McLaren will have learned their lesson by now.
But the more I came to think of it, the more I see that McLaren hasn't learned a thing of what happened in 2007 and (to a lesser degree) 2008 otherwise they would have never gotten themselves into such a mess.

So a suspended penalty could help however I am sure that if they (try to) pull a similar stunt ever again that the WMSC will have their head on a platter and imo rightly so.

#27 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:34

Don't you think this is all being blown way way out of all sense of proportion, jessss you get less for driving people of the bloody track

#28 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:39

Originally posted by HaPe

You cant compare the "crime".

If you are the accused, you can't be blamed for lying to your defense (MSC/Monaco).
But witnesses (Hamilton/McLaren) are never allowed to lie to blame another person (Trulli) for a crime.
Witness lie is a crime in itself.

HaPe


Exactly the point that I was about to make. The closest that I can think of is Massa claiming that Alonso slowed him in qualli, but the fundamental difference is that massa wasn't caught on recording admitting it.

IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.

#29 inca_roads

inca_roads
  • Member

  • 1,447 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:43

Originally posted by Josta


IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.


"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."

See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.

#30 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:46

Originally posted by inca_roads


"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."

See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.


It doesn't matter, we have a selection of extreme fans/trolls, a lot of alonso fans and some extreme ferrari fans who are so extreme in their views that it is quite distrubing, there sole purpose seems to spew hate and rile other people up.

#31 HaPe

HaPe
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:47

@inca_roads

Did Schumacher blame Alonso for an illegal manouvre to get Alonso get a penalty? No?
Okay - hope you see the difference.

#32 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:48

Originally posted by HaPe
@inca_roads

Did Schumacher blame Alonso for an illegal manouvre to get Alonso get a penalty? No?
Okay - hope you see the difference.


Neither did bloody Lewis, he didn't go to the stewards, he was summoned

#33 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:49

Originally posted by Josta
IMHO, the fact that Lewis was more than happy to steal a trophy from Trulli by lying deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for MClaren together with a large fine is in order.

I'd say a large fine to be donated to a charity that promotes Fair Play, Lewis spending 10 days to promote Fair Play and a suspended ban of McLaren from the F1 championship.
Oh and a 3 year probationary period.

#34 HaPe

HaPe
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:51

Originally posted by Anomnader
Neither did bloody Lewis, he didn't go to the stewards, he was summoned


Schumacher was summoned too, or? :rolleyes:

What does that matter?
Hamilton/Ryan deliberately lied to have Trulli get a penalty and earn P3.

Thats a much different quality, compared to lying to defense your position as an accused.

#35 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,983 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:52

Please, again, that`s not what it`s about.
It`s about article 151c, yes?

151c)
Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the
interests of any competition or to the interests of motor
sport generally.


aka "bringing the sport into disrepute"

#36 wewantourdarbyback

wewantourdarbyback
  • Member

  • 6,358 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:52

Originally posted by brunopascal
f) hanged, drawn and quartered....the only sensible thing really ;)


Doesn't that come under e) other? :stoned:

#37 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:53

Originally posted by inca_roads


"IMHO, the fact that Schumacher was more than happy to steal a pole position from Alonso, and hinder plenty of other driver's laps, by lying together with performing a delibrate blocking manuever deserves far more than the DQ. I believe a 3 race ban for Ferrari together with a large fine is in order."

See the similarity now? Schumacher got a grid penalty, Ferrari got nothing.


Please post the link to the recorded transcript of Schumacher telling his team that he did this.

Also, Schumacher was the accused. Try asking Jeffrey Archer the difference between lying in defence and lying as the the accuser.

#38 HaPe

HaPe
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 19:57

Originally posted by peroa
Please, again, that`s not what it`s about.
It`s about article 151c, yes?

aka "bringing the sport into disrepute"


Do you want to tell us, that Schumacher brought the sport into disrepute, when he parked in rascasse and (maybe!) lied to the stewards that he didnt it on purpose? :confused:

No, or?! :stoned:

*edit:
and BTW, peroa, no its NOT about "bringing the sport into disrepute"

151 c is here about:

c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally.

HaPe

#39 bugmenot

bugmenot
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:02

The way I see it is that FIA has to throw McLaren out from this and the next year's championship (maybe even for longer). Why such a "harsh" punishment you ask? Because McLaren are still on probation for spygate. I can't find the article here on Autosport but there is one that clearly states that should McLaren bring the sport into disrepute soon again (basicly same people in charge) they will get excluded. They are done IMHO. Maybe it's the best solution to get the rotten stuff out of the system. Because this surely is not the way to remember Bruce McLaren's name. It's just too much now. Whitmarsh is the light version of Dennis. The next guy will also just be the light version of Dennis and so on if someone doesn't act.

Advertisement

#40 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:06

I say better not go to the WMSC.
The tainting shadow is already hanging over the new (and promising) season.

#41 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:12

Question for everyone really...

Why is this thread so full of people demanding the severest of punishments for McLaren, Hamilton, etc, even the FIA stewards, for... wait for it... lying / being economical with the truth / bending the reality, etc. Undoubtedly not right, but hang on... hands up those of you who have never stretched the truth... ever.

Why can't we all worry about, and focus on, more important things.

Where is the outrage against, for example, Barrichello for hitting (among others) Raikkonen and getting off scot free - a potential safety issue, or worse still, Vettel for driving his car around with the potential to drop a wheel at any moment (I seem to remember a loose wheel killing an Aussie marshal not so many years ago).

Why do we have to focus on trivia.

It really does sound like a typical secondary school "He said... but no, but she told me... he's a liar... it's not fair... " crap.

Oh, by the way, I am not outraged against the above drivers although I think Vettel needed to be reined in (i.e. told to pull off immediately by his team / flag marshals). But if we're going to get heated to the point of a nuclear reaction over what was said or not to stewards, can we also look at other people's more dangerous actions, irrespective of who they are, whether they are our favourite drivers or not.

How sad that Formula has descended to this, and that the majority of posters feel it is really really important what was said in a transcript versus what was told or not to the stewards, over the matter of... was it life and death; oh no, 3rd or 4th at reduced speed...

#42 bugmenot

bugmenot
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:21

Originally posted by Nick Planas
Question for everyone really...

Why is this thread so full of people demanding the severest of punishments for McLaren, Hamilton, etc, even the FIA stewards, for... wait for it... lying / being economical with the truth / bending the reality, etc. Undoubtedly not right, but hang on... hands up those of you who have never stretched the truth... ever.


Bringing the sport into disrepute again while being on probation. Done deal IMHO. They will be excluded.

#43 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:24

Ah I see the flaw in that.

Where is this "sport" that is being brought into disrepute?java script:smilie(':')

Thought so...

#44 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,627 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:30

Originally posted by Gareth
Did they get a suspended penalty of exclusion from the championship for spygate and, if so, is it still current?


I don't believe so tbh. I've had a dig (not exhaustive mind you, i stand to be corrected as always), the following is from the the September 2007 hearing :

"The decision of the World Council is that, for 2007, McLaren will not be excluded from the Championship, but will lose all of the manufacturers points scored thus far and will score no manufacturers points for the rest of the season. They will also pay a fine of USD 100 million, less the money lost through the removal of the 2007 points. A very considerable sum of money is lost through the 2007 points; that will be deducted and the actual fine will be the difference between that figure and the USD 100 million.

The Sporting Code (Article 152) provides that removal of the manufacturers' points also entails removal of the drivers' points, barring exceptional circumstances. We believe that to be the case in that the drivers were given immunity; they therefore will not lose their points. Therein lies the exceptional circumstance. It is our belief that, without making that offer to the drivers, we would not have received the information that we had today. The drivers may continue to score point. If there is a podium, the drivers will go on it, but not McLaren. Furthermore, the other manufacturers' points remain as they are: the McLaren points gained thus far will disappear, and the rest of the places and money will be calculated on that basis."


I've had a look through the various links in Autosport's full coverage of the case and i can't find any specific references to threats of further action, so i can only assume these were implied threats by Mosley, not official statements of further action by the WMSC.

(edit, added)

You may be thinking of the 26th July hearing , which included the following:

It is the unanimous view of the World Council that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes were in possession of Ferrari secrets or Ferrari information, by virtue of Mr Coughlan's possession thereof, irrespective of certain other elements. We therefore find Vodafone McLaren Mercedes in breach of Article 151c. However, the evidence of any use of this material in a manner calculated to interfere with the Formula 1 World Championship is insufficient for us to impose any penalty.

Should, in the future, evidence emerge showing that the Formula 1 World Championship was prejudiced in any way by the possession of this information by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, either in 2007 or 2008 or any years subsequent to that, we reserve the right to invite the team back in front of the World Council, where they would be faced with the possibility of exclusion, not only from the 2007 World Championship, but also from the 2008 World Championship.


but of course this was the cause of the 2nd hearing, the judgment of which is shown above.

#45 bugmenot

bugmenot
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:33

Originally posted by Nick Planas
Ah I see the flaw in that.

Where is this "sport" that is being brought into disrepute?java script:smilie(':')

Thought so...


This latest scandal is actually much worse than spygate. This is really bringing the sport into disrepute.

#46 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,746 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:40

Originally posted by bugmenot


This latest scandal is actually much worse than spygate. This is really bringing the sport into disrepute.

???? How so ????

This is SOOOOO blown outta proportion... Its (drivers and teams lieing) has happened so many times before and it'll prob happen again..

#47 ademm

ademm
  • Member

  • 646 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:41

I dont think anything more will happen. The stewards too have behaved erratically.
They believed someone who would be the first one to benefit a penalty given to Trulli.
How naive is this really? I dont understand them. They trusted Hamilton completely and dismissed Trulli. Why? I really wonder.

#48 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:44

I have always thought that McLaren were hard done by in spygate, and Caughlin was the sole guy.

I now think differently. It seems that McLaren is a "fall guy" organisation.

Lewis needed protecting, so sack the sporting director. Something is clearly rotten in Woking, and it can't be a coincidence that lying is yet again linked to McLaren.

It seems they have learned nothing from 2007.

#49 bugmenot

bugmenot
  • Member

  • 73 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:45

Originally posted by Mika Mika

???? How so ????

This is SOOOOO blown outta proportion... Its (drivers and teams lieing) has happened so many times before and it'll prob happen again..


It's calculated and premeditated. That's why it much worse. When Coughlan got hold of the Ferrari stuff he got it from a source. He didn't act alone. Someone else acted first. What happened in Melbourne can be described as first degree murder. In the world of sport of course. It's very, very serious stuff.

#50 brunopascal

brunopascal
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 April 2009 - 20:48

Originally posted by wewantourdarbyback


Doesn't that come under e) other? :stoned:

Well yes it does! But being such a relevant option, I thought I should spell it out...