I would say that he has less point than Rosco...
Mercedes and Ferrari in 'secret' Pirelli tyre tests
- Thread starter The Artist.....
- Start date
I would say that he has less point than Rosco...
Niki Lauda says he had a deal in place not sure I believe it and if it is true he's been trying to do deals Lauda has just shown the FIA they know they are guilty.
oh and is it me or is the Merc F1 team management this year just coming off as one big series of the Apprentice? Eaxh trying to take credit for all the good stuff, shifting the blame and claiming they knew the right way to do things all along.
I think Ross Brawn is def being brought back into the board room this week.
I think Ross Brawn is def being brought back into the board room this week.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Chinese whispers - easier to lay it on Lauda than to digest the long version, methinks.
"Another early twist to what were already set to prove fascinating proceedings today according to Ted Kravitz is the suggestion from Niki Lauda, Mercedes' Non-Executive Chairman, via the German press that the FIA offered the team the chance to 'cut a deal' provided they pleaded guilty to the charges levied against them by the Tribunal:
Ted says: "This is a report we're getting this morning from the German press, Niki Lauda supposedly saying that the FIA were ready to cut a deal with Mercedes if they pleaded guilty ahead of the hearing. This hearing would have been cancelled and then some punishment would have been meted out.
"Lauda was also saying, after suggesting this supposedly, his Team Principal Ross Brawn and Toto Wolff said 'no, we want this to go to trial, go to the tribunal and take our luck in the court'. So we will see if that was the right decision or not. I think Ross Brawn fancies his chances here today, whether he's successful we'll find out in the next few hours."
Piece by James Galloway edited by Pete Gill - 08:17 am
"Another early twist to what were already set to prove fascinating proceedings today according to Ted Kravitz is the suggestion from Niki Lauda, Mercedes' Non-Executive Chairman, via the German press that the FIA offered the team the chance to 'cut a deal' provided they pleaded guilty to the charges levied against them by the Tribunal:
Ted says: "This is a report we're getting this morning from the German press, Niki Lauda supposedly saying that the FIA were ready to cut a deal with Mercedes if they pleaded guilty ahead of the hearing. This hearing would have been cancelled and then some punishment would have been meted out.
"Lauda was also saying, after suggesting this supposedly, his Team Principal Ross Brawn and Toto Wolff said 'no, we want this to go to trial, go to the tribunal and take our luck in the court'. So we will see if that was the right decision or not. I think Ross Brawn fancies his chances here today, whether he's successful we'll find out in the next few hours."
Piece by James Galloway edited by Pete Gill - 08:17 am
Niki Lauda playing the 'I would have took the deal sir Alan it was the Terminator and Brawn that took the chance in court' card then.
"You should have taken the money toombs."
Blog Zbod
Podium Finisher
The F1 Times writes that Lauda told "Blick" he had cooked up a (private, not secret) deal in the shadows with Bernie to avoid the tribunal whereby Merc would pay a sizable fine but avoid loss of championship points. Wolff and Brawn refused to sign off on the deal, a decision I fear both will come to regret.
But that begs the question, why would Lauda have taken this measure unless he thought the team were guilty ...of something?
It must be only in the print issue of Blick because I can't find the article online.
EDIT:
Sorry, I took too long composing this, and several others have beaten me to the punch.
He can't be..
Edit
Well not legally anyway...
Edit
Well not legally anyway...
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
How can Bernie possibly be involved with a deal involving Mercedes and the FIA?
That's not a massive conflict of interest at all.
There, fixed that for you
... not sure Bernie is the right man to be dipping into the waters of "plea bargaining".
On a serious note, this Independent Tribunal isn't looking so independent of the FIA if a back room deal (plea bargain or otherwise) is even being seriously discussed by them. The case having been referred to the Tribunal is in their hands not those of the FIA. What's next "Tribunal-Gate"?
I can't see Mr Ecclestone standing by silently whilst Mercedes are going through the gate labelled "Exit". His speciality is deals, it may be true that he should not be involved but I would not bet on it.
Is it any wonder that the FIA resist so fiercely an involvement by an independent ruling body such as the court for arbitration in sport.
To offer a deal before arbitration is a completely legitimate coarse of action, in sport and in criminal law....
I agree with that Mephistopheles, but aren't you supposed to cut the deal with the court or the prosecution, not with the bloke who runs the coffee shop and sells the souvenir t-shirts.
Absolutely cider_and_toast and Fenderman a referral can be withdrawn at any time, right up to and including the start of proceedings if an agreement has been reached between the two relevant parties...
Trust me I've been through enough tax tribunals to know this...
Trust me I've been through enough tax tribunals to know this...
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
thanks Mephistopheles. In that case nobody should have any complaints about any of the parties thinking up deals to put on the table.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
Absolutely and likewise Mephistopheles.
A few things have occurred to me, now that I have read the IT reports from Sky, BBC, James Allen on F1 and some other sources..
Thus far from what has reached the public domain it seems that the cases for the defense have been as I assumed when I posted at the beginning if this month. What perturbs me is the apparent absence of anyone really biting the bullet with regard to the lack of specific regulations for Pirelli led testing (or with regard to any supplier led, for that matter).
The FIA position is almost tantamount to an assumption that the Pirelli contract binds them to the Sporting Regulations whilst Pirelli's stance is that they don't. By inference, Pirelli's position suggests that nothing in their contract says anything about a testing need or regime that hadn't even been thought of when the contract was written.
The FIA's own communication giving Pirelli dispensation to do these 1,000km tests does actually specify that Pirelli run them and that Pirelli has the duty to inform all of the other teams. That was the view relayed back to Mercedes from the FIA legal department. Since it was not a Mercedes test then the FIA's own communique with Pirelli is actually corroborated by theFIA's own legal eagle's opinion as relayed back to Mercedes. It is also apparent that it was not "a phone call" but at least two telephone conversations between Whiting and Mercedes and email communications between Whiting and the legal department. It is therefore not unreasonable for Mercedes to assume that they took the proper precautionary steps via consultation with Whiting since the terms cited by the legal department were in fact already known to Pirelli.
So it all goes back to the lack of regulations covering the test. Again the FIA's opinion relayed by Whiting implies that they know there's a problem because they in effect ask for the holder of the test to tell them (FIA) what they (Pirelli) planned to do and how they were to do it. Surely that should have been agreed between Pirelli and the FIA when the dispensation to test was given along with a set of draft rules drawn up to cover foreseeable eventualities.
Unfortunately the reporting is sketchy as to all of the content of the arguments at the IT so we can't judge for ourselves whether this was gone into in more detail. However, from where I sit at a comfortable distance what I've said in that last paragraph does not appear to have been raised at the IT. I think that issue is more important than the communications foul up that lies at the heart of this whole farce-gate.
Finally, if the arguments against Mercedes case hold up then the Ferrari test held on the Catalunya circuit just prior to the Spanish GP must surely need a revisit. Testing on a track just prior to a GP on that very same circuit is an absolute no-no in anybody's book.
A few things have occurred to me, now that I have read the IT reports from Sky, BBC, James Allen on F1 and some other sources..
Thus far from what has reached the public domain it seems that the cases for the defense have been as I assumed when I posted at the beginning if this month. What perturbs me is the apparent absence of anyone really biting the bullet with regard to the lack of specific regulations for Pirelli led testing (or with regard to any supplier led, for that matter).
The FIA position is almost tantamount to an assumption that the Pirelli contract binds them to the Sporting Regulations whilst Pirelli's stance is that they don't. By inference, Pirelli's position suggests that nothing in their contract says anything about a testing need or regime that hadn't even been thought of when the contract was written.
The FIA's own communication giving Pirelli dispensation to do these 1,000km tests does actually specify that Pirelli run them and that Pirelli has the duty to inform all of the other teams. That was the view relayed back to Mercedes from the FIA legal department. Since it was not a Mercedes test then the FIA's own communique with Pirelli is actually corroborated by theFIA's own legal eagle's opinion as relayed back to Mercedes. It is also apparent that it was not "a phone call" but at least two telephone conversations between Whiting and Mercedes and email communications between Whiting and the legal department. It is therefore not unreasonable for Mercedes to assume that they took the proper precautionary steps via consultation with Whiting since the terms cited by the legal department were in fact already known to Pirelli.
So it all goes back to the lack of regulations covering the test. Again the FIA's opinion relayed by Whiting implies that they know there's a problem because they in effect ask for the holder of the test to tell them (FIA) what they (Pirelli) planned to do and how they were to do it. Surely that should have been agreed between Pirelli and the FIA when the dispensation to test was given along with a set of draft rules drawn up to cover foreseeable eventualities.
Unfortunately the reporting is sketchy as to all of the content of the arguments at the IT so we can't judge for ourselves whether this was gone into in more detail. However, from where I sit at a comfortable distance what I've said in that last paragraph does not appear to have been raised at the IT. I think that issue is more important than the communications foul up that lies at the heart of this whole farce-gate.
Finally, if the arguments against Mercedes case hold up then the Ferrari test held on the Catalunya circuit just prior to the Spanish GP must surely need a revisit. Testing on a track just prior to a GP on that very same circuit is an absolute no-no in anybody's book.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
