la force supreme des mclaren

Mclaren Handed Suspended Ban

99 posts in this topic

:lol:

God that guy Murray (R.I.P., bless his holey socks and all that) was an idiot. I'm surprised to see you agreeing with him. You couldn't pay Andr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't believe in punishment in a sort of moral sense? Some would say if you do something wrong you deserve to lose something, that there ought to be a cost to wrong-doing. Just a question. Personally I think McLaren have already been punished by losing their points. And it's quite possible there was a whole subplot to this business the public will never know about and that might change everything.

That is one school of thought with regards to punishment. In fact, I do believe in terms of society that punishment should be mainly about that, and not rehabilitation for example. There should certainly be a cost to wrong doing.

But with Mclaren, they have already been punished heavily in 2007 for an offence, they were fined and thrown out of the championship. They came back just as strong, and then re-offended. The fact that they offend again after that shows that punishing them doesn't actually do that much. In 2007 the punishment was supposed to right some moral wrong to Ferrari? Not really, that was just BS politics too. In this case I don't see Trulli as much of a victim either, sorry. Now that his place in Aus has been reinstated and Hamilton's annulled, there is no wrong to correct by way of further punishment. As for lying to the FIA? I don't see them as a victim either. I don't see a moral wrong. I see stupidity in lying repeatedly (Mclaren) and incompetence in failure to investigate properly in the first place (FIA). They deserve each other.

Anyway, what was my point? Punishment in terms of sport is useless unless it deters the offender. Would a three race ban stop Mclaren offending again? Probably not if a $100m fine didn't. Instead of facing a three race ban, Mclaren decided to change their ways, Dennis left, Ryan got fired and reports are that the team atmoshpere is different under Whitmarsh. Mclaren punished themselves, just because it didn't come from a court doesn't mean they didn't lose something, some people forget that. It's better that Mclaren change themselves from within than WMSC trying to enforce change upon them. So what would anyone gain from ban on Mclaren? FIA - nothing, the teams already know that the FIA can punish cheating as harshly as they like. The fans - nothing, they lose track action. F1 as a sport - nothing, it could have resulted in the loss of Mercedes. Mclaren could have lost Mercedes and been well and Trulli truly buggered, that would have been disproportionate to the crime and terrible for F1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I agree entirely - except I tend to think deterrence (hard word to spell, that) and rehabilitation are better aims of punishment/sentencing in society too but that's another issue. Like you said, the McLaren cheating scandals are political BS. I suspect that 'cheating' at the FIA is as responsible for the development of the scandals as the cheating at McLaren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I agree entirely - except I tend to think deterrence (hard word to spell, that) and rehabilitation are better aims of punishment/sentencing in society too but that's another issue. Like you said, the McLaren cheating scandals are political BS. I suspect that 'cheating' at the FIA is as responsible for the development of the scandals as the cheating at McLaren.

I think you are probably right about that, sentencing I mean, it's just hard to achieve.

:mellow: Lets enjoy racing?

Talking about racing and enjoying racing are not mutually exclusive, in fact they tend to compliment each other quite well :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I agree entirely - except I tend to think deterrence (hard word to spell, that) and rehabilitation are better aims of punishment/sentencing in society too but that's another issue.

It's an issue of resources not of ethics.

Dealing with offenders/criminals is bound by what a society can afford.

Living hand-to-mouth in a desert island, I would throw child-rapists off a cliff.

In present "modern" societies, I would lock them up and throw the key away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living hand-to-mouth in a desert island, I would throw child-rapists off a cliff.

..but then you'd be guilty of murder so someone would have to throw you off a cliff....

And where do you set your boundary on what crimes deserve being thrown off a cliff?

This is where the ethics kick in.

What if rather than being a child-rapist, they were a shop-lifter? Sounds extreme, but not that long ago historically speaking, we were deporting people to penal colonies for comparatively minor crimes and in medieval times even sightly eccentric behaviour could have you labelled as a witch, leading to almost certain death or disfigurement. Half this forum would be on medieval death-row by now :D

And what if they were an eminent scientist who was working successfully on a cure for cancer? If they repented their crime and committed to better behaviour? Wouldn't you want to keep them, albeit under scrutiny?

Putting this back to F1 - I believe McLaren's crime is the equivalent of shop-lifting. Bad - yes, stupid - definitely. But worth throwing them off a cliff? which would destroy the championship, threaten sponsor involvement, create more bad press and probably lead to Hamilton moving - No.

Keeping them under the threat of a ban is an act of genius - no way are they going to do anything dodgy. Shame of the situation is that this leaves the other teams to carry on cheating for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most desert islands have flat beaches anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most desert islands have flat beaches anyway.

That's not a problem, you'll just have to throw them many times in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..but then you'd be guilty of murder so someone would have to throw you off a cliff....

And where do you set your boundary on what crimes deserve being thrown off a cliff?

This is where the ethics kick in.

What if rather than being a child-rapist, they were a shop-lifter? Sounds extreme, but not that long ago historically speaking, we were deporting people to penal colonies for comparatively minor crimes and in medieval times even sightly eccentric behaviour could have you labelled as a witch, leading to almost certain death or disfigurement. Half this forum would be on medieval death-row by now :D

And what if they were an eminent scientist who was working successfully on a cure for cancer? If they repented their crime and committed to better behaviour? Wouldn't you want to keep them, albeit under scrutiny?

Putting this back to F1 - I believe McLaren's crime is the equivalent of shop-lifting. Bad - yes, stupid - definitely. But worth throwing them off a cliff? which would destroy the championship, threaten sponsor involvement, create more bad press and probably lead to Hamilton moving - No.

Keeping them under the threat of a ban is an act of genius - no way are they going to do anything dodgy. Shame of the situation is that this leaves the other teams to carry on cheating for the time being.

See....you had me agreeing right up to the point where you brough F1 back into the post....I mean, this is a medieval discussion forum, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...someone would have to throw you off a cliff...

volunteers? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's an issue of resources not of ethics.

Dealing with offenders/criminals is bound by what a society can afford.

Living hand-to-mouth in a desert island, I would throw child-rapists off a cliff.

In present "modern" societies, I would lock them up and throw the key away.

Interesting post. For some it's an issue of ethics. You get no end of British press-reading, violent lynch mobs who quite literally want to stone paedophiles to death, after mutilating them and marinading them in vinegar. For them it's all about retribution and 'justice'. Bigots.

Even if you are not so ignorant as to go along with that, still I feel this kind of emotion in your post. Don't you think child-rapists have some medical problem - if not why do they do things we would never(?) do?

In the case of child-rapists, the medical issues might possibly be incurable but in general I think 'society can afford' to spend far more on rehabilitation than we do. Incarceration is very expensive and upon release we can expect a pernicious legacy of recidivism, low productivity, bad parenting, drug addiction etc.

More rehabilitation would probably save us money and trouble in the long run. The reason we don't do it is because it's politically incorrect and unpopular to say child-rapists need help not punishment.

[quote name='El Silenci

Edited by Max Mosley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS Old Spice's post was a very fun and good one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting post. For some it's an issue of ethics. You get no end of British press-reading, violent lynch mobs who quite literally want to stone paedophiles to death, after mutilating them and marinading them in vinegar. For them it's all about retribution and 'justice'. Bigots.

Even if you are not so ignorant as to go along with that, still I feel this kind of emotion in your post. Don't you think child-rapists have some medical problem - if not why do they do things we would never(?) do?

In the case of child-rapists, the medical issues might possibly be incurable but in general I think 'society can afford' to spend far more on rehabilitation than we do. Incarceration is very expensive and upon release we can expect a pernicious legacy of recidivism, low productivity, bad parenting, drug addiction etc.

More rehabilitation would probably save us money and trouble in the long run. The reason we don't do it is because it's politically incorrect and unpopular to say child-rapists need help not punishment.

This is my pov on it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More rehabilitation would probably save us money and trouble in the long run. The reason we don't do it is because it's politically incorrect and unpopular to say child-rapists need help not punishment.

Why put them in rehab? Just kill them which would save us a fortune. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is my pov on it too.

Yep, mine too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with McLaren constantly messing up? One thing after another. Makes you wonder what the other teams are up to? I assume that you always would do the most you can to get an advantage in any way possible. They saw an opportunity and went for it. Their biggest mistake was when they got busted, rather than putting their hands up they decided to keep up the lie.

Remeber they have their media team that can deal with the fallout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think even the slickest of media teams could have done anything with this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has someone already pointed this out...

1.6 Hamilton was asked
Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now