Re: A question for the McApologists

CatharticF1 <eferrari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jeff York <ralf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:gqadf3t6sjv1g20bldnkbdtqq05gbkp8tm@xxxxxxx:

CatharticF1 <eferrari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jeff York <ralf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:9on7f3dip1iajel4jgek91hrjq4r4bp473@xxxxxxx:

CatharticF1 <eferrari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter - their Chief Designer had a vast dossier of Ferrari
information and a continual exchange of information he knew was
wrong.

As to the "vastness" of the dossier, we will never know. He
certainly appeared to be in communication with Stepney, and once
again we will probably never know what was communicated...

... He is
admitted to have communicated various ideas / drawings to various
senior team members.

Hardly... There was the "moveable floor" schematic. The "rear wing"
was obvious to anyone with eyes. The "braking system" appears to
have been details of something that he'd been involved with in
1993...

Use any adjective you like, so now the defence moves to become: it
turns out the bit we're admitting to isn't useful. So that's OK.

No - it's not!

You're dead right it's not... They weren't admitting to using *any*
Ferrari IP in their car. Full Stop.

They are denying there is any.
They are denying they took advantage of any information by only
communicating the issues where they took none.

And still - they are guilty of processing the information to determine
its applicability. That's enough.

You're making a massive leap of bad-faith there... There's no evidence
that Mclaren did anything with the data, only that it was in Coughlan,
de la Rosa and Alonso's posession and the testimony of the latter two
was that no use had been made. The nearest that you can come to
"processing" the information was dlR's dissemination of it to Alonso.
That's it...

One of whom famously didn't want to look without knowing what they
were..

So, he didn't look... And thus did not have the contents thereof
communicated to him.

That he knew he shouldn't look doesn't make you at all suspicious?
I wonder why...

I'm absolutely sure that what Coughlan had in his posession shouldn'
have been there. I'm equally sure that he was thereby prevented from
disclosing same to his managers. He was also told in no uncertain
terms that he shouldn't have it, they didn't want to see it and he
should destroy it. Seems reasonable to me.

Neale should have done something about it, not put himself in a position
where all he can demonstrate is denial.

Like what? If he'd looked at it you'd be screaming for his head on a
pike by now...

Two of the three drivers have admitted acting on the available
information.

No they haven't...

If you want to play semantics you need to make the effort to justify
it.

That's not semantics it's a statement of fact. The information that
had been fed to Alonso via de la Rosa was unusable, therefore, by
definition it could not have been acted upon.

If you take a chip that you think might make your car faster, plug it in
and find the connector is different - are you guilty of acting
improperly? In attempting to use it you cheated. You acted on it.

No. It would have been attempted cheating... But the scrutineers would
only find the standard component in the car... In my experience of
motor sport you only get penalised for actual infringements, not
because someone "thinks" that you might have cheating.

Now answer me this question Jeff: In your experience, tell me the
likelihood that the evidence uncovered even using the full weight of a
legal system and the police arm is complete?

The only evidence that has been uncovered is purely circumstantial.
There is no proof whatsoever that any Ferrari IP is or was used on the
McLaren. No Proof... Capiche?

Denial is what there is.
And proof of attempting to use your opponent's IP to your benefit.

There's suspicion, but no proof Bren.

This would lead to the conclusion that on the balance of probability
there is more, and why should the WMSC not act on that?

Because there is *no proof*... *No evidence*. "The prosecution" are
supposed to prove their case, not vice versa. This, they singularly
failed to do, because there was *no proof*.

There was proof of trying to use illicitly gained information.

No there wasn't. See above.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Suggested addition to TO archive
    ... The respondent provided a variety of evidence against "mutations ... Information must have meaning ... Is communication taking place when a butterfly's markings ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question for the McApologists
    ... turns out the bit we're admitting to isn't useful. ... that Mclaren did anything with the data, only that it was in Coughlan, ... "processing" the information was dlR's dissemination of it to Alonso. ... internally making communication with Coughlan a sackable or at least ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: A question for the McApologists
    ... appeared to be in communication with Stepney, ... out the bit we're admitting to isn't useful. ... Ferrari IP in their car. ... If you want to play semantics you need to make the effort to justify it. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Call for participation: What types of organisations adopt agile methods?
    ... Most of the time one must implement things the client hasn't asked for, if one is to implement what the client wants. ... The whole business about requirements gathering is human-to-human communication. ... Rather than pouting that people should be better at requirements gathering up front, the agile outlook acknowledges that we aren't, by dint of which it reduces the cost of imperfect communication, formalizes the adaptation to new knowledge and provides rapid feedback as to whether a project actually is doing what's wanted, instead of waiting until millions have been spent to discover the problem. ... Before you go to the dealer, without googling for car specs or looking at any pictures of cars, completely specify your car. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: A question for the McApologists
    ... certainly appeared to be in communication with Stepney, ... turns out the bit we're admitting to isn't useful. ... And still - they are guilty of processing the information to determine ... If you want to play semantics you need to make the effort to justify ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)