Comments on: Joaquin Verdegay’s unwise words (Updated)

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:48:45 +0000

Maybe something got lost in translation? Autosport is not noted for its spoofs or fabrications…

By: FerrariFan

FerrariFan — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 05:13:29 +0000

Irrespective of whether he is telling the truth or talking through his hat, it is totally inappropriate for a ‘jury’ member to arrive at a decision before he’s even seen the evidence…and it’s even worse that he would openly announce it to the media. Provided he did say what he’s supposed to have said of course.

“Normally, and I hope this is what happens, there would not even be a reprimand for Ron Dennis…”
You’ve got to be kidding me!! The chap isn’t even objective if he said this…how is one supposed to judge a trial objectively if he is ‘hoping’ the defendant gets away scot-free? Very sad state of affairs.

By: Dan M

Dan M — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:04:54 +0000

I agree that he shouldn’t be talking about the forthcoming trial, but what MS did in Monaco was blatantly obvious. I would only hope that the same decision would have been made regardless of the nationality of the driver of official.

His only fault here is telling the truth. It will be nearly impossible so prove beyond a doubt that the documents were used in the current car. What if it is proven that McLaren benefited from the information and they are somehow punished, wouldn’t there be the same talk of favoritism toward Ferrari?

By: Journeyer

Journeyer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:28:50 +0000

So if Verdegay didn’t say that, what did he say? How could it have been mistranslated into something like that?

Surely, he DID say something in Spanish about the issue… Unless AS was completely fabricating the story.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:04:25 +0000

Things that make you go hmmm…., eh? Senor Verdegay should have kept his mouth shut until the case was solved, for the same reason as forums should censor libellious comment on Stepney/Ferrari/McLaren/Coughlan matters.

Commenting on the reasoning for a decision after the fact, as per Monaco 2006, is fine by my book as long as it wasn’t meant to be a secret. In fact it shouldn’t be a secret, because it helps us understand what the judges were thinking when they made their decision. That thinking, however, should be done during the case, not beforehand.