AndyR said:
Mock all you want, its well known that teams snoop on each other and anyone that doesn't accept that is just blinkered.
Of course it is well known that all teams snoop on each other, but for heavens sake, can you not see the difference between snooping (e.g. taking photographs of other teams cars, recording engine notes, and generally guesstimating from there) to actually having in your possession blueprints of your chief rivals cars, having a mole providing a stream of realtime technical data, relating to not only the car itself, but also operational procedures and strategies for the races?
AndyR said:
Autosport ran an article with one of the engineers at Toyota and one at Red Bull, both of whom say they at previous teams have had information on others teams strategies, development etc
And show me the quote where these same engineers say that such information was provided by being in possession of stolen blueprints, IP and moles?
😉
AndyR said:
Even Nigel Stephney admitted in the trial that Ferrari had info on McLaren, its just that McLaren got caught first.
Yet, one would've thought that a man of such honesty and undoubted integrity would've been only so happy to provide proof of such information to not only McLaren but also the FIA.
🙄 😉
Whilst I do not doubt for one moment that Ferrari have information on McLaren, I'm thinking it's unlikely to have come from stolen blueprints, or a constant stream of data from a mole in Paragon.
😛
AndyR said:
The reason McLaren got done is they didn't cough up to the fact they were in possession of them
No. at their first hearing they were found to be possession of confidential Ferrari information, and therefore in breach of the International Sporting Code, there was no evidence that they had made use of such information, that's why, like Renault they weren't punished.
McLaren were only
"done" when it was later revealed that not only were they in possession, but they were actively making use of the information, despite their original assertions otherwise.
