The oldest trick in the book of defence

> I have, but I prefer to read source material and think for myself rather > than thinking what other people tell me to. I see. Then the full text of Mosley's statement, and the verifiable quotes from Haug and Dennis, and the full text of the appeals board's ruling are hearsay, by your professional lights? No, I ignore it because A) neither Brawn not Todt ever used the word "illegal", which all you amateur Perry Masons seem to have fixated upon as the "evidence that should have sent Ferrari to the chair", and B) even if they had, it makes no difference whatsoever once the appeal has been lodged, to which you will mechanistically reply (as you have): No, it most assuredly is not. Once again, you have confused the process of the FIA's board of appeals with TV courtroom drama. READ SLOWLY: The hearing last Friday in Paris was held for ONE purpose only: to judge the merit of, in this case, Ferrari's appeal of Joachim Bauer's OPINION. In Sepang, nearly two weeks ago, the immediately subsequent result of Bauer's OPINION was the automatic decision by the organizers of the Malaysiam GP to exclude both Ferraris from the final results. The appeals board, however, was NOT called upon to judge the race organizers' exclusion of Ferrari -- the organizers' duty to exclude Ferrari from the results is unquestionable IF -- and ONLY if -- Jo Bauer's opinion went unappealed. That opinion WAS, of course, appealed. Follow me so far? There are ONLY two things the appeals board may be allowed to consider in the hearing: First, Jo Bauer's technical opinion, as written at Sepang, with no amendments or ancillary arguments -- IN OTHER WORDS, when Bauer wrote his opinion, the moment he handed that written opinion to the race organizers, the opinion was frozen in time and graven in stone. Nothing else could be added to (or subtracted from) that argument -- which you amateur solicitors out there have confused with "evidence": Think of it in logical terms, rather than based upon your fantasies of bringing vile miscreants to justice while boffing Lara Flynn Boyle and wearing $1500 Armani suits: An opinion is written, Ferrari appeals the opinion, a board is automatically convened to decide whether Ferrari's appeal of the written opinion has merit. If, in the meantime, Bauer, the FIA, the CIA, Ron Dennis, and Richard Miller were allowed to get together and add a little to the opinion here, firm it up a little there, delete this imprecise passage over there, ad infinitum, ad nauseam...well, as I said before: we'd still be debating the outcome of the 1950 British GP and every subsequent race and champioship -- in fact, there wouldn't have BEEN any subsequent championships, as such an unending process -- nearly as long as this thread -- would have stopped F1 in its tracks 49 years ago. So, AGAIN, the rule -- as agreed upon my every member of the PRIVATE CLUB that is F1 -- is that the opinion against which the appeal has been made must (and rightly so) be judged exactly as it was presented to the race organizers: no more, no less. SECOND, the appeals board considers the arguments and "evidence" of the appealing party AT THE APPEALS HEARING, AND ONLY AT THE APPEALS HEARING. The chosen tactic or line of appeal ("no performance advantage," inadequate measuring equipment/methods") is THAT which the appealing party presents AT THE HEARING -- NOT what they might have warbled like confused pigeons at Sepang, or what some out-of-work ex-pilote thinks it ought to be when he drools in front of the Press like any other Monday-Morning quarterback. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, so PLEASE take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of your mouth for a minute and pay attention: By giving the appealing party an entire unfettered week in which to prepare their appeal, while forcing the FIA tech steward to stick with his original opinion, this method assures the most fair treatment to the party making the appeal (quite the opposite from the "guilty until proven innocent" drivel put forward by another ng bogus barrister), and THAT'S the way it HAS to be. These are life-and-death decisions for the drivers and teams, but affect the FIA and their tech reps not at all, so obviously the drivers/teams have the most to lose -- MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE TEAMS AGREED upon this method of appeals process in the first place, huh? Doooohhhhh.... This is also the reason these appeals boards are convened as quickly as possible: when F1 races are held as close together as one week -- so there has to be a fast, decisive court of appeal, the decisions of which appeals board are final, and unappealable (see 1950 British GP above). As much as it may personally discomfit the lunchtime lawyers here, there IS NO impassioned Sam Waterston rising in righteous wrath in the middle of the appeals court shouting "But your honor! The criminal Todt HIMSELF agreed the darn board things were out-of-spec!" It just don't happen that way because...S U R P R I S E ! ! !...it's NOT A COURT OF LAW; it's a members-only meeting to decide, by mutually-agreed-upon-rules, if some other mutually-agreed-upon-rules have been contravened by one of their members. The same thing happens in the Rotary Club, the Shriners, your local Country Club (I assume all attorney wanna-bes belong to country clubs, no?), the Mystic Knights of the Sea, and probably the Ku Klux Klan (Duuuhhhh....Yer Grand Dragon Eminence Sir, Billy-Bob done showed up at the cross-burnin' with the K-Mart tag on the OUTSIDE of his robes agin'... cain't we *** him?). OK, put the Tootsie-Roll Pop back in your mouth. Bart Brown

Barton Spencer Brown wrote on Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:06:42 +0000: <SNIP> Nice going, Bart my man! Very nice! :-) -- Cheers, Tilman `Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and everything else follows in the same way.' -- Alan J. Perlis

Ouch!!

Quoted text (100 lines)

> > I have, but I prefer to read source material and think for myself rather > > than thinking what other people tell me to. > I see. Then the full text of Mosley's statement, and the verifiable > quotes from Haug and Dennis, and the full text of the appeals board's > ruling are hearsay, by your professional lights? > > Ross Brawn's TV press conference. He both admitted the piece was illegal > > and demonstrated how a part of it was missing which meant that it failed > > to comply with the regs. Are you the only person here who didn't see it, > > or are you just ignoring it because it destroys your contention? > No, I ignore it because A) neither Brawn not Todt ever used the word > "illegal", which all you amateur Perry Masons seem to have fixated upon > as the "evidence that should have sent Ferrari to the chair", and B) > even if they had, it makes no difference whatsoever once the appeal has > been lodged, to which you will mechanistically reply (as you have): > > On the contrary, it is all part of the evidence which is available to the Board. > No, it most assuredly is not. Once again, you have confused the process > of the FIA's board of appeals with TV courtroom drama. READ SLOWLY: The > hearing last Friday in Paris was held for ONE purpose only: to judge the > merit of, in this case, Ferrari's appeal of Joachim Bauer's OPINION. In > Sepang, nearly two weeks ago, the immediately subsequent result of > Bauer's OPINION was the automatic decision by the organizers of the > Malaysiam GP to exclude both Ferraris from the final results. The > appeals board, however, was NOT called upon to judge the race > organizers' exclusion of Ferrari -- the organizers' duty to exclude > Ferrari from the results is unquestionable IF -- and ONLY if -- Jo > Bauer's opinion went unappealed. That opinion WAS, of course, appealed. > Follow me so far? > There are ONLY two things the appeals board may be allowed to consider > in the hearing: First, Jo Bauer's technical opinion, as written at > Sepang, with no amendments or ancillary arguments -- IN OTHER WORDS, > when Bauer wrote his opinion, the moment he handed that written opinion > to the race organizers, the opinion was frozen in time and graven in > stone. Nothing else could be added to (or subtracted from) that argument > -- which you amateur solicitors out there have confused with "evidence": > Think of it in logical terms, rather than based upon your fantasies of > bringing vile miscreants to justice while boffing Lara Flynn Boyle and > wearing $1500 Armani suits: An opinion is written, Ferrari appeals the > opinion, a board is automatically convened to decide whether Ferrari's > appeal of the written opinion has merit. If, in the meantime, Bauer, the > FIA, the CIA, Ron Dennis, and Richard Miller were allowed to get > together and add a little to the opinion here, firm it up a little > there, delete this imprecise passage over there, ad infinitum, ad > nauseam...well, as I said before: we'd still be debating the outcome of > the 1950 British GP and every subsequent race and champioship -- in > fact, there wouldn't have BEEN any subsequent championships, as such an > unending process -- nearly as long as this thread -- would have stopped > F1 in its tracks 49 years ago. > So, AGAIN, the rule -- as agreed upon my every member of the PRIVATE > CLUB that is F1 -- is that the opinion against which the appeal has been > made must (and rightly so) be judged exactly as it was presented to the > race organizers: no more, no less. > SECOND, the appeals board considers the arguments and "evidence" of the > appealing party AT THE APPEALS HEARING, AND ONLY AT THE APPEALS HEARING. > The chosen tactic or line of appeal ("no performance advantage," > inadequate measuring equipment/methods") is THAT which the appealing > party presents AT THE HEARING -- NOT what they might have warbled like > confused pigeons at Sepang, or what some out-of-work ex-pilote thinks it > ought to be when he drools in front of the Press like any other > Monday-Morning quarterback. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, so PLEASE take the > Tootsie Roll Pop out of your mouth for a minute and pay attention: By > giving the appealing party an entire unfettered week in which to prepare > their appeal, while forcing the FIA tech steward to stick with his > original opinion, this method assures the most fair treatment to the > party making the appeal (quite the opposite from the "guilty until > proven innocent" drivel put forward by another ng bogus barrister), and > THAT'S the way it HAS to be. These are life-and-death decisions for the > drivers and teams, but affect the FIA and their tech reps not at all, so > obviously the drivers/teams have the most to lose -- MAYBE THAT'S WHY > THE TEAMS AGREED upon this method of appeals process in the first place, > huh? Doooohhhhh.... This is also the reason these appeals boards are > convened as quickly as possible: when F1 races are held as close > together as one week -- so there has to be a fast, decisive court of > appeal, the decisions of which appeals board are final, and unappealable > (see 1950 British GP above). > As much as it may personally discomfit the lunchtime lawyers here, there > IS NO impassioned Sam Waterston rising in righteous wrath in the middle > of the appeals court shouting "But your honor! The criminal Todt HIMSELF > agreed the darn board things were out-of-spec!" It just don't happen > that way because...S U R P R I S E ! ! !...it's NOT A COURT OF LAW; it's > a members-only meeting to decide, by mutually-agreed-upon-rules, if some > other mutually-agreed-upon-rules have been contravened by one of their > members. The same thing happens in the Rotary Club, the Shriners, your > local Country Club (I assume all attorney wanna-bes belong to country > clubs, no?), the Mystic Knights of the Sea, and probably the Ku Klux > Klan (Duuuhhhh....Yer Grand Dragon Eminence Sir, Billy-Bob done showed > up at the cross-burnin' with the K-Mart tag on the OUTSIDE of his robes > agin'... cain't we *** him?). > OK, put the Tootsie-Roll Pop back in your mouth. > Bart Brown

-- \\|// | --James-- | | --ICQ# 36334509-- | | | | Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" |

Fabulous summary my good man. Based in fact, direct and to the point, and easily read. Bravo! Rik

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > I have, but I prefer to read source material and think for myself rather > > than thinking what other people tell me to. > I see. Then the full text of Mosley's statement, and the verifiable > quotes from Haug and Dennis, and the full text of the appeals board's > ruling are hearsay, by your professional lights? > > Ross Brawn's TV press conference. He both admitted the piece was illegal > > and demonstrated how a part of it was missing which meant that it failed > > to comply with the regs. Are you the only person here who didn't see it, > > or are you just ignoring it because it destroys your contention? > No, I ignore it because A) neither Brawn not Todt ever used the word > "illegal", which all you amateur Perry Masons seem to have fixated upon > as the "evidence that should have sent Ferrari to the chair", and B) > even if they had, it makes no difference whatsoever once the appeal has > been lodged, to which you will mechanistically reply (as you have): > > On the contrary, it is all part of the evidence which is available to the

Board.

Quoted text (80 lines)

> No, it most assuredly is not. Once again, you have confused the process > of the FIA's board of appeals with TV courtroom drama. READ SLOWLY: The > hearing last Friday in Paris was held for ONE purpose only: to judge the > merit of, in this case, Ferrari's appeal of Joachim Bauer's OPINION. In > Sepang, nearly two weeks ago, the immediately subsequent result of > Bauer's OPINION was the automatic decision by the organizers of the > Malaysiam GP to exclude both Ferraris from the final results. The > appeals board, however, was NOT called upon to judge the race > organizers' exclusion of Ferrari -- the organizers' duty to exclude > Ferrari from the results is unquestionable IF -- and ONLY if -- Jo > Bauer's opinion went unappealed. That opinion WAS, of course, appealed. > Follow me so far? > There are ONLY two things the appeals board may be allowed to consider > in the hearing: First, Jo Bauer's technical opinion, as written at > Sepang, with no amendments or ancillary arguments -- IN OTHER WORDS, > when Bauer wrote his opinion, the moment he handed that written opinion > to the race organizers, the opinion was frozen in time and graven in > stone. Nothing else could be added to (or subtracted from) that argument > -- which you amateur solicitors out there have confused with "evidence": > Think of it in logical terms, rather than based upon your fantasies of > bringing vile miscreants to justice while boffing Lara Flynn Boyle and > wearing $1500 Armani suits: An opinion is written, Ferrari appeals the > opinion, a board is automatically convened to decide whether Ferrari's > appeal of the written opinion has merit. If, in the meantime, Bauer, the > FIA, the CIA, Ron Dennis, and Richard Miller were allowed to get > together and add a little to the opinion here, firm it up a little > there, delete this imprecise passage over there, ad infinitum, ad > nauseam...well, as I said before: we'd still be debating the outcome of > the 1950 British GP and every subsequent race and champioship -- in > fact, there wouldn't have BEEN any subsequent championships, as such an > unending process -- nearly as long as this thread -- would have stopped > F1 in its tracks 49 years ago. > So, AGAIN, the rule -- as agreed upon my every member of the PRIVATE > CLUB that is F1 -- is that the opinion against which the appeal has been > made must (and rightly so) be judged exactly as it was presented to the > race organizers: no more, no less. > SECOND, the appeals board considers the arguments and "evidence" of the > appealing party AT THE APPEALS HEARING, AND ONLY AT THE APPEALS HEARING. > The chosen tactic or line of appeal ("no performance advantage," > inadequate measuring equipment/methods") is THAT which the appealing > party presents AT THE HEARING -- NOT what they might have warbled like > confused pigeons at Sepang, or what some out-of-work ex-pilote thinks it > ought to be when he drools in front of the Press like any other > Monday-Morning quarterback. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, so PLEASE take the > Tootsie Roll Pop out of your mouth for a minute and pay attention: By > giving the appealing party an entire unfettered week in which to prepare > their appeal, while forcing the FIA tech steward to stick with his > original opinion, this method assures the most fair treatment to the > party making the appeal (quite the opposite from the "guilty until > proven innocent" drivel put forward by another ng bogus barrister), and > THAT'S the way it HAS to be. These are life-and-death decisions for the > drivers and teams, but affect the FIA and their tech reps not at all, so > obviously the drivers/teams have the most to lose -- MAYBE THAT'S WHY > THE TEAMS AGREED upon this method of appeals process in the first place, > huh? Doooohhhhh.... This is also the reason these appeals boards are > convened as quickly as possible: when F1 races are held as close > together as one week -- so there has to be a fast, decisive court of > appeal, the decisions of which appeals board are final, and unappealable > (see 1950 British GP above). > As much as it may personally discomfit the lunchtime lawyers here, there > IS NO impassioned Sam Waterston rising in righteous wrath in the middle > of the appeals court shouting "But your honor! The criminal Todt HIMSELF > agreed the darn board things were out-of-spec!" It just don't happen > that way because...S U R P R I S E ! ! !...it's NOT A COURT OF LAW; it's > a members-only meeting to decide, by mutually-agreed-upon-rules, if some > other mutually-agreed-upon-rules have been contravened by one of their > members. The same thing happens in the Rotary Club, the Shriners, your > local Country Club (I assume all attorney wanna-bes belong to country > clubs, no?), the Mystic Knights of the Sea, and probably the Ku Klux > Klan (Duuuhhhh....Yer Grand Dragon Eminence Sir, Billy-Bob done showed > up at the cross-burnin' with the K-Mart tag on the OUTSIDE of his robes > agin'... cain't we *** him?). > OK, put the Tootsie-Roll Pop back in your mouth. > Bart Brown

wouldn't "here it's legal, here it's legal, here it's not" count as admitting to be illegal in a (normal) court of law? Sven. -- ..a little irRa+i0naL..

>> I have, but I prefer to read source material and think for myself rather >> than thinking what other people tell me to. >I see. Then the full text of Mosley's statement, and the verifiable >quotes from Haug and Dennis, and the full text of the appeals board's >ruling are hearsay, by your professional lights? The appeal board's ruling is its own interpretation of the evidence, but it is the closest to source material available for much of the evidence. The various statements and quotes are just that - the spin placed on the judgement by various people all with a huge axe to grind. I will not be bound in my thinking by what any of them say, although I read it with interest. Brawn did. Who are you calling an amateur?:-) [snip] Indeed. And here we come to the nub of the matter and why what Ferrari said at the time of the original DQ is relevant. The Appeal Board heard a number of arguments - from Ferrari, from Stewart and from McLaren. They had to consider which of those arguments was persuasive. Now if Ferrari say immediately after the DQ "Ooops", and then say at the appeal hearing, "Hey guys, what's the problem, we were legal all along", that is something the Board is entitled to consider when deciding whether what Ferrari has presented is a valid and genuine ground for upholding the appeal or just a desperate and unjustifiable ex post facto attempt at justification from a bunch of overpaid briefs. As a lawyer myself I know how difficult it is - rightly - to convince a Court to allow you to rescind an admission or confession which you have freely made. It knackers your credibility. In this case, the Board decided that the appeal was justified. So be it. -- Richard Miller

>> neither Brawn not Todt ever used the word "illegal", >wouldn't "here it's legal, here it's legal, here it's not" >count as admitting to be illegal in a (normal) court of law? Yes. -- Richard Miller

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Now if Ferrari say immediately after the DQ "Ooops", and then say at the > appeal hearing, "Hey guys, what's the problem, we were legal all along", > that is something the Board is entitled to consider when deciding > whether what Ferrari has presented is a valid and genuine ground for > upholding the appeal or just a desperate and unjustifiable ex post facto > attempt at justification from a bunch of overpaid briefs. As a lawyer > myself I know how difficult it is - rightly - to convince a Court to > allow you to rescind an admission or confession which you have freely > made. It knackers your credibility.

Sorry, Richard, but you are completely misinformed about this. You insist on confusing the rules board of a private club with a nation/state judicial system, and it's just not so. That's not a personal opinion, it's in the FIA rules: the appeals board can only consider the original opinion, as made at the time, and Ferrari's case for appealing that opinion -- it is nothing more, nor less, than a hearing to consider the appeal, period. Nothing that went before -- except, of course, the original steward's opinion -- can have ANY bearing on the appeal process whatsoever. Your most misapprehensive statement, however, is this complete and utter floater: That is quite simply and quite thoroughly untrue. It DID not, and CAN not happen that way. While both McLaren International and Stewart-Ford were invited to appear in Paris, they were there as observers only -- they contributed nothing to the appeals deliberations, because they are not allowed, by the FIA rules, to contribute anything to the appeals deliberations. The only "argument" the appeals board was empowered to consider that Saturday was Ferrari's appeal of the original technical opinion by Jo Bauer. Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again), that's why it is called an "appeals hearing." I'm sure you're a fine lawyer, but this was NOT a case of law. Trying to apply all your bar-exam crib-note judiciary algorithms to it will not, and can not, make it a case of law. Again, and for the last time: the FIA is a private club that has evolved a set of rules that all the club members -- through years of deliberations such as the recent "Concorde Agreement" -- promise to abide by. These rules are in NO way related to nation/state judicial proceedings, any more than are the rules by which the Ku Klux Klan or the Knights of Columbus operate. If you think I'm incorrect, then please show me, just as a for-instance, where either McLaren International or Stewart-Ford were allowed to make "a number of arguments" to the appeals court during Ferrari's appeal. In other words, put up or shut up. Here's a good starting place: The International Court of Appeal's Full Decision http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1740.htm McLaren's official statement http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1743.htm Stewart-Ford's official statement http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1741.htm Mercedes' Staement http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1744.htm Max Moseley's staement: http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1745.htm

> If you think I'm incorrect, then please show me, just as a for-instance, > where either McLaren International or Stewart-Ford were allowed to make > "a number of arguments" to the appeals court during Ferrari's appeal. In > other words, put up or shut up. While I disagree with almost all of Richard Miller's analysis and claims in this thread, on this point the FIA has made it clear that McLaren and Stewart could ask to be heard and did state their case at the appeal hearing: 1. FIA press release describing the appeal process (http://www.fia.com/presse/f1-a/18-10-99.htm) Excerpt: "On the day of the appeal, the International Court of Appeal hears all the parties involved and their lawyers and examines all the documents and other evidence. Any competing team which may be directly and significantly affected by the decision of the Court of Appeal may also request a hearing." 2. Decision of the appeals court (http://www.fia.com/presse/f1-a/23-10-99.htm) Excerpt: "Team West McLaren Mercedes was represented by Mr. Martin Whitmarsh and its legal advisers Mr. Anthony Bosworth QC and Mr. Timothy Murnane. Team Stewart Grand Prix was represented by Mr. Paul Stewart and its legal advisers Mr. Christopher Clarke QC and Mr. Jeremy Courtenay-Stamp. Having heard the parties and examined the evidence, the International Court of Appeal has established that : ..."

I agree you are picking nits. I was making the point that McLaren and Stewart as affected parties have a right to be heard at the appeal and were invited to the hearing for this very purpose. I was responding the Barton's statement that: "While both McLaren International and Stewart-Ford were invited to appear in Paris, they were there as observers only -- they contributed nothing to the appeals deliberations, because they are not allowed, by the FIA rules, to contribute anything to the appeals deliberations." The first FIA press release (18/10) expressly mentions their right to be heard at the appeals hearing. Re: Whether they took advantage of their rights or not, I agree that the second FIA statement (23/10) does not *explicitly* say that McLaren and Stewart stated their case, but it does say that the "parties" were heard. The parties listed just before that sentence are ACI, Ferrari, McLaren and Stewart. This excerpt from the McLaren press release after the hearing sheds further light on this issue: "The West McLaren Mercedes team was invited to attend the International Court of Appeal hearing in Paris. In accepting the invitation, it was our understanding that there was an ***and written acceptance that there had been a breach of the Technical Regulations. In a case of a breach of the Technical Regulations during a race the penalty that has been consistently applied is the one that was given in Malaysia, namely that of exclusion. In the circumstances we felt that the decision of the Stewards was correct and consistent with the previous practices of Formula One. Our purpose in attending was to point out these and other matters, and to seek a consistent application of the rules as established in the past in similar circumstances."

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Dave wrote on Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:41:33 -0500: > > While I disagree with almost all of Richard Miller's analysis and > > claims in this thread, on this point the FIA has made it clear that > > McLaren and Stewart could ask to be heard and did state their case > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > at the appeal hearing: > [...] > > ([link lost in import] > [...] > > ([link lost in import] > While we're picking nits: I would say it is *not* clear from these > statements that, as you claim, McLaren and Stewart *did* state their > case. They say that they could have, and they say who represented them > at the hearing. Not that whoever represented them took any active role > during the hearing. > -- > Cheers, Tilman > `Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and > everything else follows in the same way.' > -- Alan J. Perlis

> While we're picking nits: I would say it is *not* clear from these statements that, as you claim, McLaren and Stewart *did* state their case. They say that they could have... ----------------------- I can understand the confusion generated by this exceptionally abridged summary of the appeals procedure, provided at their website by the FIA as a quick & dirty reference for the short-attention-span press; however, the FIRST key to understanding the situation is in this statement from that summary: "On the day of the appeal, the International Court of Appeal hears all the parties involved and their lawyers and examines all the documents and other evidence." If you'll read the *complete* FIA Rules regarding the process, you'll discover that the only "parties involved" in the appeal are those involved in the original steward's opinion -- in this case, Ferrari and the FIA itself. Had McLaren, for instance, officially lodged a complaint with the stewards at Malaysia regarding Ferrari's turning vanes, then McLaren would, by the rules, have fallen into the category of "all the parties involved." McLaren did NOT do so, preferring instead, as Norbert Haug later admitted, to whisper in Joachim Bauer's ear. *** (pure opinion from here to end of paragraph) Why? One can only conjecture, but *my* opinion for possibilities: A) they weren't so sure themselves that Ferrari's barge boards were possibly out of spec, and B) someone with a remaining shred of decency -- possibly Mika? -- might have reminded McLaren's "Citizen Chauvelin," Ron Dennis, that a Championship bought at ANY price might NOT be worth having. Fact mode back on: McLaren, therefore was NOT an involved party in the deliberations of the appeals board. However, that was NOT their last chance to be heard. Going back to the first FIA link in the message: "Any competing team which may be directly and significantly affected by the decision of the Court of Appeal may also request a hearing." NOTE: NOT "may contribute to the hearing at hand," BUT "may request a hearing" -- again, more fully elucidated in the full FIA rules. AND YET, despite all Ron Dennis' and Norbert Haug's initial stated "significant" disgust with the "decision of the Court of Appeal" -- brayed loudly and often to the motorsports tabloid journalists present -- and their theatrical denigration of the technical aspects and future ramifications of that decision, they did NOT request a hearing, as was their avenue of redress under the rules. So just how serious *were* McLaren International's protestations that the FIA had turned the rules upside-down, destroyed their own reputation, yadda, yadda, yadda? If they felt that strongly about it, they could have requested a hearing. Yet they did not request such a hearing, and within hours, Ron Dennis was claiming to be "not surprised" and "not upset" -- so what was the intermission opera all about? The "documents and other evidence" -- again, in this case -- are simply the Jo Bauer's written opinion to the race organizers AS ORIGINALLY MADE AT SEPANG, and whatever Ferrari comes up with to support their appeal the morning of the hearing. This, too, is very specifically spelled out in the full text of the FIA rules, available at fine bookstores everywhere.

Dave wrote on Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:41:33 -0500: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ While we're picking nits: I would say it is *not* clear from these statements that, as you claim, McLaren and Stewart *did* state their case. They say that they could have, and they say who represented them at the hearing. Not that whoever represented them took any active role during the hearing. -- Cheers, Tilman `Learning French is trivial: the word for horse is cheval, and everything else follows in the same way.' -- Alan J. Perlis

> I agree that the second FIA statement (23/10) does not *explicitly* say > that McLaren and Stewart stated their case, but it does say that the "parties" > were heard. Well, actually, it doesn't even say that, more's the pity. The FIA COULD have made a clear statement, but instead said merely: "Having heard the parties and examined the evidence, the International Court of Appeal has established that..." And McLaren doesn't help clear up matters any when they say: "Our purpose in attending was to point out these and other matters, and to seek a consistent application of the rules as established in the past in similar circumstances." That may well have been their *purpose,* but what did they ACTUALLY do? According to FIA rules, they could have asked for a hearing, but the fact is, they did not. BB

I read it the same way as Dave, but your interpretation could well be right. -- Richard Miller

Oh, and BTW, didn't Mika win a clean race in truly World-Class fashion? Not that anyone GaS, but I have never been a Hakkinen fan since his questionable behavior at the memorial service for Senna and Ratzenberger at Monaco. Last year and this, however, he has shown a human side and a Champion's grace -- even his emotional difficulties at Monza (and who can blame him?) show how much he's matured. And whatever you think of Irvine, his post-race congratulatory embrace with Mika was a class act. In fact, IMHO, the best thing that came out of the appeals ruling in Paris (besides, of course, the long-overdue impetus for the FIA to clarify their inadequate technical regulations) was the opportunity to decide the championship in a clean, fair, and unequivocal way -- which was what Mika said he wanted more than anything. Despite the Clouseau-like bumbling of the FIA, the Championship ended on a (relatively) high note. And while Schumacher and Irvine described the Manufacturer's Championship as a consolation prize, you can bet DeMontezemolo, Todt, Brawn, and the rest of the team see it as FAR more than that. Besides the MC's importance to the team, Ferrari this year have shown a level of reliability unprecedented in F1 history -- look at Irvine's ratio of laps completed to laps available: something like 98%, I believe. That's fantastic! Not to disappoint those ng folk who need a downside, WHAT is the story with Coulthard? He could have delivered the Manufacturer's Championship to McLaren-Mercedes, and instead -- once again -- threw the whole thing off the road. Sad. BB

Very true. I hated Mika for his immature, disrespectful behavior at that memorial, five years ago. We were hurting so much and there he was, laughing and unable to keep his mouth shut. I enjoyed every single mishap that went his way the next two terrible seasons. But the finn changed, since them. He grew up and was graceful in difficult situations. He paid his dues and his endurance is now paying off. He is a deserving champion. R. > [...] have never been a Hakkinen fan since his > questionable behavior at the memorial service for Senna and Ratzenberger > at Monaco. Last year and this, however, he has shown a human side and a > Champion's grace -- even his emotional difficulties at Monza (and who > can blame him?) show how much he's matured. [...]

> Dave wrote on Fri, 29 Oct 1999 21:41:33 -0500: > While we're picking nits: I would say it is *not* clear from these > statements that, as you claim, McLaren and Stewart *did* state their > case. They say that they could have, and they say who represented them > at the hearing. Not that whoever represented them took any active role > during the hearing. It's not nit picking. They were there. They could've spoken. They did not because they had nothing to contribute. If Ferrari says the measurements were not correct only the FIA could possibly challenge it. McLAren and Stewart were not in aposition to challenge Ferrari's assertions. Any-hoo it all turned out for the best. Hakkinen DWC and Ferrari CWC.. both deserving in my view Ken