dans79 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:54

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:27

What i find interesting is how much certain members of the forum wants to critisize the FIA, despite the fact they were simply doing their job. One might also suggest that someone has an agenda against the FIA.

Pot, meet kettle.

.
Might want to try a little harder, I've had an issue with the FIAs stupidity, bias, complacency, and overall uselessness for well over a decade!

.
Thank God! MBS has only been in charge for two years and those years before that it was Jean Todt! So it's not just MBS's fault.

dans79 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:54

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:27

What i find interesting is how much certain members of the forum wants to critisize the FIA, despite the fact they were simply doing their job. One might also suggest that someone has an agenda against the FIA.

Pot, meet kettle.

Might want to try a little harder, I've had an issue with the FIAs stupidity, bias, complacency, and overall uselessness for well over a decade!

So in other words, when they finally do what they're supposed to do, and handle a case like it's supposed to be handled (quickly investigated, allegations dismissed, everyone can move on with their lives), you're unable to recognize it, because you have anti-FIA bias?

Because that's kinda the picture you're portraying right now - that in your eyes, they can't do anything right.

You're more or less just proving my point right now

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:12

So in other words, when they finally do what they're supposed to do, and handle a case like it's supposed to be handled (quickly investigated, allegations dismissed, everyone can move on with their lives), you're unable to recognize it, because you have anti-FIA bias.

You're kinda just proving my point right now

I think you are proving my point, that's some people were happy to hear about it because it was Merc related. However now that nothing came from it, they are trying to drag it out! Just like some people are trying to do with the Lewis trophy thing!

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:27

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 17:26

You cannot conduct an investigation based on spurious gossip.
Not even the damn police can do that.

Sure they can.

If i call the police and say "It sounds like my neighbors are fighting", and they show up and knock on my neighbors door, that technically qualifies as an investigation, and it's technically based on gossip.

They send detectives and a swat team and then brief the media "off the record" before conducting an enquiry too?
Police do not investigate gossip. A neighbour calling the police is an official complaint and counts as a team calling the police.
Police black list numbers and sources that give falsified information because...well, I'll let you figure that one out TFSA.
Conflation is occurring here and I can only assume its because of bias against Mercedes.

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:27

And i think you should be mindful of what the outlook would be if the FIA completely ignored a potential controversy that was quickly gaining traction in the media.

If Toto and Suzie had set their sights on the real villain here, everyone (including the sport) would all be better off for it

The FIA jumping on gossip and overreaching by using spurious news as a tool for starting a formal investigation.

Using facets of your incorrect example, the Police(FIA) are alerted by what a notorious and consistently unreliable source(businessF1) is saying in the hood about a fight at one particular house(Mercedes), turned up with a swat unit and detective with a media crew outside to investigate wrongdoing before making any enquiries to ascertain if there was wrongdoing at all. Not even a phone call
This is due process.

Then every neighbour in the street(the teams) tells them nope, a simple squad car making an enquiry could see these people weren't even home. This after ...(everyone repeat after me) "a notorious and consistently unreliable source(businessF1)" made said allegation.

The FIA heard zero from anyone aside from BusinessF1. A wretched source of information where the owner has a record number of libel cases against him.

The only conclusion you draw from that scenario is what beef the Police had with those neighbours. Because those neighbours are fully and rightly allowed to enact a legal case to:
A) Sue the defamer.
B) Make legal enquiries as to how the police(FIA) failed to follow due process for procedural investigation by validating a known bad source of information in a manner harmful to the reputations of the neighbour(Merc/Toto/Susie).

Everyone understands A), and B) really should follow pretty easily if exhibiting a modicum of impartiality.

Because if it doesn't....ohhh boy I want to see those 180 degree spins when Crash.net or TJ13 runs a story damaging to your favoured team, and the FIA decide to go hunting in the calamitous fashion they did here

dans79 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:16

I think you are proving my point, that's some people were happy to hear about it because it was Merc related. However now that nothing came from it, they are trying to drag it out! Just like some people are trying to do with the Lewis trophy thing!

Not really. At least not on my part.

I WANT Mercedes to hit back for this - but at the right target.
I want them to sue BusinessF1 for that crappy article.
I'm also happy that all of the teams came out in support of Suzie Wolff in her position.
And finally, I also actually like Toto. I'll admit I'm not the biggest Hamilton or Russell fan (Hamilton is a great driver, it's mostly his off-track personality that's a bit of a turnoff for me). But i think Toto is really cool most of the time, and i don't have anything particularly against Mercedes.

What I'm not happy about is them trying to use this entire thing as a weapon against the FIA, when they were literally just doing their job.

You may think the FIA is completely inept - and in some cases, i would actually agree. But i don't think they're useless.

Their entire job, beyond governing the sport, is to make sure that commercial interests doesn't ruin the sport. That's a seriously hard job, when you have Liberty Media on the other side, pushing for a bigger calendar, sprints, races in corrupt arabic countries and trying to just maximize profits every way they can, with no care for the sport. And the teams, having their own commercial interests at heart to a great extend, aren't exactly doing a banger of a job either of looking after the sport. I'd say that half of the failures that people attribute to the FIA could have been avoided, if Liberty Media didn't try to milk the sport so vigorously.

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:27

it's mostly his off-track personality that's a bit of a turnoff for me

What about his personality exactly curious to know?

There is a lot of drivers out there that I'd say had a dam site worse personalities.

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 18:47

Again, it didn't "hit" anyone. They concluded that everything was in order.

They said they were investigating, and then said "Everything is in order - the FOM has proper procedures in place to ensure information isn't leaked". How is that "hitting the FOM" again? Or Suzie Wolff for that matter. It pretty much clears them of any wrongdoing.

You're simply spinning a false narrative now.

Except that launching an investigation via tweet (or whatever we call it on "X") damaged Toto and Susie politically... Giving validity to a made up story from a tabloid... attributing wrongful acts to their names and roles within F1... It was bad enough that all, and let me emphasize that again ALL, the teams issued coordinated press release's on this matter.

A well meaning FIA would have seen a tabloid mudsling and done a quite inquiry to FOM, and after confirming is was BS, put out a press release saying that that "Everything is in order - the FOM has proper procedures in place to ensure information isn't leaked"...

Also, a narrative that is different than yours is not "false". These are opinions on the proper (or improper) way to handle PR.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:25

They send detectives and a swat team and then brief the media "off the record" before conducting an enquiry too?
Police do not investigate gossip. A neighbour calling the police is an official complaint and counts as a team calling the police.

No it's not. As the neighbor, i might not be complaining. I might just be a concerned bystander who is worried about what's happening.

And an article in the media, even one by a questionable media, counts as the same. It can be the equivalent of a complaint, but it can also simply be the equivalent of a "concerned bystander".

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:25

Conflation is occurring here and I can only assume its because of bias against Mercedes.

Well, you can throw your assumptions in the bin. This is not me attacking Mercedes, as it is me defending the FIA for doing their damned job.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:25

The FIA jumping on gossip and overreaching by using spurious news as a tool for starting a formal investigation.

Using facets of your incorrect example, the Police(FIA) are alerted by what a notorious and consistently unreliable source(businessF1) is saying in the hood about a fight at one particular house(Mercedes), turned up with a swat unit and detective with a media crew outside to investigate wrongdoing before making any enquiries to ascertain if there was wrongdoing at all. Not even a phone call
This is due process.

No, because the FIA didn't show up with a SWAT team. That was my entire point. They made a minor inquiry, and quickly determined that nothing was afoot and cleared everyone. It's the equivalent of a police wellfare check.

You misrepresenting my example doesn't make the example incorrect. That's just you getting the logic wrong.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:25

The FIA heard zero from anyone aside from BusinessF1. A wretched source of information where the owner has a record number of libel cases against him.

Except they didn't just investigate after BusinessF1 posted their article.

They investigated after the article made the rounds, got traction in other F1 media, and Mercedes/Suzie Wolff themselves started publishing statements. Once something gains enough traction and gets big enough, it warrants investigation, if only to put it to rest and say "There's no evidence of any wrongdoing" and stop the rumor mill.

That's what always happens, also outside of F1. Things sometimes get so big that they cannot be ignored.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:25

The only conclusion you draw from that scenario is what beef the Police had with those neighbours. Because those neighbours are fully and rightly allowed to enact a legal case to:
A) Sue the defamer.
B) Make legal enquiries as to how the police(FIA) failed to follow due process for procedural investigation by validating a known bad source of information in a manner harmful to the reputations of the neighbour(Merc/Toto/Susie).

Once again a wrong take.
Calling the police doesn't count as defamation, unless it was clearly done maliciously (like "swatting"). If it is simply done as a concerned citizen, there's no defamation nor harassments charges that can be brought.

Also, your claims that the FIA didn't follow due process is also dubious at best. You tried to do your incredibly flawed legal analysis a few pages back, trying to hinge on small technicalities ("Susie is not a he." - as if rules don't apply to females). I may be overstepping the boundaries of good forum etiquette now, but I'm gonna say it plainly: That analysis was so poor that it's hard to take anything you say in regards to legal matters seriously. Fact is, that this is not how legal matters work in the real world

f1jcw wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:30

What about his personality exactly curious to know?

There is a lot of drivers out there that I'd say had a dam site worse personalities.

Oh, i agree. Don't get me wrong, i was simply trying to explain my view on Mercedes as a whole, because there's a lot of bias accusations flying in my direction that I'm only arguing my point here because i hate Mercedes.

I wasn't trying to argue that i hate the guy, or that he's the worst. Hamilton is fine in my eyes. His driving is great - good reason many consider him the GOAT. Russell is a decent driver too, although many people think he's annoying on the radio. To answer your question, though, i dislike how Hamilton often off-track tries to make everything political, and as such often says some rather hypocritical - or in some cases, in my opinion, downright stupid - stuff.

But he's okay - i don't want to give the impression that i dislike him. But if i had to name 5 drivers i would love to go for a beer with, he probably wouldn't make the list.

Regarding Toto, i like him for the same reason i like Max: Both of them are straight to the point and direct. But i also like that Toto his a lot of integrity. For example, he was the one who called for people to respect the cost-cap penalty the FIA handed to Red Bull, while other team principles were calling for draconian measures (despite themselves having agreed to the rules and punishments - it's easier to argue for harsher punishments once you yourself have been cleared). Many team principles complain way too much - you rarely get that with Toto.

denyall wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:34

Except that launching an investigation via tweet (or whatever we call it on "X") damaged Toto and Susie politically... Giving validity to a made up story from a tabloid...

No it doesn't. Maybe for rabid fans who just wants to see Mercedes burn in hell, but rabid fans are rabid fans. They will always say stupid stuff.

But if talking from a legal perspective, courts don't measure based on what insane or biased people perceive. They will look at a case like this and ask themselves, "What would a reasonable person think."

And the fact is that any reasonable person would:

• not assume anything is necessarily wrong just because it's being investigated.
• wait for the conclusion of the investigation.
• accept the conclusion of the investigation (Suzie and FOM wasn't doing anything wrong).
• realize the FIA was just doing their job investigation something that eventually became a big story, if only to put the case to rest.

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 19:41

No it's not. As the neighbor, i might not be complaining. I might just be a concerned bystander who is worried about what's happening.

And an article in the media, even one by a questionable media, counts as the same. It can be the equivalent of a complaint, but it can also simply be the equivalent of a "concerned bystander".

A bystander with the worst history of Libel (false accusations) in British publishing history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Rubython

The police wouldn't do a thing until a real concerned bystander confirmed. As the FIA should've.

Wilfully bypassing this fact to conflate Mr Rubython as a "concerned bystander" makes me think you are biased.
Because the Police would dismiss it as a waste of time, and the FIA would not have initiated an investigation based on the fact they knew Tom Rubython was in no way a reliable figure to draw up an official investigative action.

This literally dispels any assertion you made in your post, and previous post that Toto/Susie are wrong to pursue litigation.

For the very fact the FIA took a comic book allegation seriously, and ham-fisted their investigation on a predictably fake story, tells you this should never ever have been escalated to what it was.

If you don't think so, can you cite any FIA official investigation made by way of allegations from a shitheap publication?
I'll wait.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:30

A bystander with the worst history of Libel (false accusations) in British publishing history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Rubython

Last time I'll repeat myself:

They investigated after the article made the rounds, got traction in other F1 media, and Mercedes/Suzie Wolff themselves started publishing statements. Once something gains enough traction and gets big enough, it warrants investigation, if only to put it to rest and say "There's no evidence of any wrongdoing" and stop the rumor mill.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:30

Wilfully bypassing this fact to conflate Mr Rubython as a "concerned bystander" makes me think you are biased.
Because the Police would dismiss it as a waste of time, and the FIA would not have initiated an investigation based on the fact they knew Tom Rubython was in no way a reliable figure to draw up an official investigative action.

This literally dispels any assertion you made in your post, and previous post that Toto/Susie are wrong to pursue litigation.

Yes, they'd dismiss it as a waste of time.... after investigating and finding out it's a waste of time. Same as the FIA. You can't know for certain it's a waste of time until you investigate.

And as such, no, Toto and Susie are still wrong to pursue litigation against the FIA. It's all a PR stunt. They have nothing - as in absolutely nothing - on the FIA here.

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:30

For the very fact the FIA took a comic book allegation seriously, and ham-fisted their investigation on a predictably fake story, tells you this should never ever have been escalated to what it was.

If you don't think so, can you cite any FIA official investigation made by way of allegations from a shitheap publication?
I'll wait.

I'll refer to my first paragraph again.

TFSA wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:40

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:30

A bystander with the worst history of Libel (false accusations) in British publishing history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Rubython

Last time I'll repeat myself:

They investigated after the article made the rounds, got traction in other F1 media, and Mercedes/Suzie Wolff themselves started publishing statements. Once something gains enough traction and gets big enough, it warrants investigation, if only to put it to rest and say "There's no evidence of any wrongdoing" and stop the rumor mill.

Yes, they'd dismiss it as a waste of time.... after investigating and finding out it's a waste of time. Same as the FIA. You can't know for certain it's a waste of time until you investigate.

And as such, no, Toto and Susie are still wrong to pursue litigation against the FIA. It's all a PR stunt. They have nothing - as in absolutely nothing - on the FIA here.

I'll refer to my first paragraph again.

You can refer to yourself if you wish, it still does not overcome the objections most people have unfortunately.

Is it possible to cite a story from a comic book rag that was used as motive to start an investigation by the FIA?
Because I think that's the contentious part you might be missing.
If a story is sourced then it won't be unprecedented overreach by the FIA.
If a story can't be sourced, then it should be sensible for the thread to agree that this is unprecedented overreach by the FIA.

Sensible right?

ValeVida46 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2023, 21:54

You can refer to yourself if you wish, it still does not overcome the objections most people have unfortunately.

First: I don't care what objections people have. I'm simply providing legal explanation. People can feel whatever they like - this still is not defamation (from the FIA), and they still haven't done anything legally wrong.

We can disagree on whether the investigation was warranted in the first place. That's perfectly fine to disagree on. I don't buy your arguments, and you don't buy mine. But it wasn't violating any rules or laws, and it's - legally speaking - not defamation.

Personally, i don't think that Suzie would truly prefer to be dragged around the media for weeks on end, with them all speculating "When is the FIA gonna investigate this?" Because those were questions which were certainly gonna be asked if the FIA hadn't acted. And as mentioned earlier, the only reason that they are making fuss of this on the FIA rather than the real villain, is because this entire situation just happens to be a convenient way for them to do a power play vs. the FIA and Mohammed bin Sulayem.

Second: You don't represent "most people" - even if you think you do And even if you did....

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France, 1844-1924