Im sorry but you are so very wrong. I have read all the transcripts from the trial. Including the emails from and to Alonso himself. And he talks specifically about things in the Ferrari dossier, technical things on the car which he urges the engineers to test as soon as possible. That is unrefutable facts no matter how bad you want it not to be. Here is one example:
Source: Transcripts from the trial now posted on Wikipedia. You see that? Un-equi-vocally.
You will also find that Alonso was even aware of what lap Kimi was pitting in Melbourne. That is severely corrupt behaviour from Alonso any which way you look at it.
Edit: Oops. Started to write and then came back and missed your post, cardin. Oh well. It seems that these facts needs to be hammered home for some people.
Sure, he knew about it, as the e-mails clearly show and people has repeated for the nth time
. Let's try with a tedious analogy
A guy rob a bank and his son happens to know it, and he doesn't care if his father has robbed a bank (you follow, right?) The father goes to trial and is found guilty of robbing the bank, but he is so beloved by the people in the neighborhood that they can only talk about how GUILTY
his son is of knowing about his father and not saying anything to the police. Not only he doesn't say anything, but actually he enjoys the money. But then, when he is called to testify, people blame him for talking and call him a blackmailer
I can understand the neighbors would like to see the brat hanged, but what exactly is he guilty of?
Not accomplice, in case you are wondering. Alonso didn't help in any way in getting that information.
Leaving aside the big elephant in the room, you could say that using that information is not a commendable attitude, even though is just as common as apple pie in F1 for teams to copy other team designs and for drivers to be very eager to add them to their cars. The difference is that they usually don't possess the whole specs from your rival's car. So the question again is not whether he should have used the information or not. The question is: Should Alonso have blew the whistle when they gave him the information or use it as he did?
The Wonderland scenario is for Alonso to have said: "No, dude, this is wrong. If they want to improve the car, they can do it, but don't let me know" (even though he was already aware of the paper
). I found quite stupefying that people call him whistleblower and blackmailer, and then complain because he did not blew it when he should and only gave the information only when asked.
So to put your thoughts in order: The reason above is not a reason for you to hate the guy. Rather, your hatred for Alonso makes that an unequivocal reason to reinforce your bile.
Otherwise, your hatred for Alonso must be nothing compare to the hatred you have for McLaren. Is that the case?