The part where the Independent Tribunal, having heard all the evidence, said that Merc acted in good faith,
I know the various and asundry meanings of good faith - and not one of them includes acting with fore-knowledge of wrongdoing to gain an unfair advantage in a competitive arena.
had no intention to gain an unfair sporting advantage, disclosed the essence of what they were doing to the FIA and had no reason to think approval hadn't been given.
Merc had every intention of gaining an unfair sporting advantage. They used their 2013 car, their 2013 drivers and tested 2013 tyres among others, over 600 miles of testing time - they had the opportunity to obtain feedback from their drivers. Are you telling me they believed they would obtain no performance gains whatsoever?
Why did they keep the test to themselves - not just "private" from race fans, but "secret" from other teams - surely they didn't believe the other teams would fanboy their drivers did they? Why did they have their drivers in camouflage helmets? Merc's explanation: those things were "unfortunate".
Why would a seasoned F1 guru like Brawn suddenly believe that inconclusive letters from the FIA speaking of possibilities, together with an ambiguously worded interpretation of them from his legal counsel, was sufficient permission to carry out the test? Does that smack of good faith to you or a basis for further inquiry of the FIA?
Think about that; Brawn and crew did not go to the FIA for clarification; Brawn and crew went to outside legal counsel. You know when clients seek counsel rather than regulators in this type of situation? When the client is seeking a means of cheating and getting around the rules, not for clarifications and explanations of them, because that is part of the regulator's job - to interpret, explain, clarify and answer questions about its rulings. Furthermore, Brawn's counsel should have gone to the FIA on their behalf to clarify - not give ambiguous advice based on their reading of the letters. Everyone involved knew all of this - I am not inventing the wheel here.
So what does Brawn to do when everything he has regarding the legality of the test is ambiguous and/or requires clarification?
He does the test.
And you find his "intent" to be innocent of the pursuit of an advantage? Really? Come on man.
Those are the independent tribunal's conclusions, that you somehow manage to read as 'cheating sc*mbags.'
Correct. Based on the above, it is clear to me that Mercedes has behaved in the manner of a group of lowdown, dirtbag cheats and gotten clean away with it.
I can't think of a reason why not. What are you suggesting?
It wasn't a suggestion, it was a question.
Edited by bourbon, 22 June 2013 - 20:29.