No, if it were Ferrari saying the FIA didn't "have a leg to stand on", they'd have protested innocence. They'd have said words to the effect of "We don't think we've done anything wrong, and if the FIA penalise us without any evidence or a fair hearing, then we feel it is a matter that should be taken to the courts" - not "If anybody tries to penalise us, we're going to take legal action".
What does Ferrari's innocence or guilt have to do with the FIA's chances of winning the case? Mind you, my
opinion is that they're guilty as sin of making Massa move over for Alonso.
They're not protesting their innocence because that would be silly. Ferrari managed to execute a driver swap without issuing a direct order, and if the FIA prosecuted them for it, they would be able to sue the FIA successfully.
The wording of Luca's exact comments were aggressive and came across as an attempt to bully the FIA into ruling in Ferrari's favour or else risk a highly-public lawsuit.
It's a pre-emptive strike, reminding the FIA of how tenuous their stand is. They were just pointing out the obvious. The FIA didn't rule in Ferrari's favor, note. They merely stated that no further punishment was necessary. In other words, the FIA found Ferrari guilty of something, but couldn't push for bigger punishment because they couldn't prove it.
And (now, this part is my opinion, and yes, slightly speculative, but I feel it necessary to point as much out because I know someone in general and The Outlaw in particular will only concentrate on this part of my post if I don't) considering that the FIA had recently had their authority undermined - hell, their entire ability to penalise someone for wrongdoing - by the French courts (was it the French? I'm sure it was the French ...) in the case of Flavio Briatore, it's easy to see why the FIA might be eager to make sure the matter went away quickly. Bearing in mind Ferrari's earlier behaviour where they berated the new teams for simply existing (and conveniently forgetting that there was a time not so long ago - the Capelli years - when they were backmakers, struggling to finish on a regular basis and scoring just 21 WCC points to Williams' 164), I interpreted Luca's comments as being an attempt to bully the FIA into ruling in Ferrari's favour. After all, the FIA felt certain they had an ironclad case against Briatore - with multiple testimonies from drivers and key team personnel - and they had the decision reversed by the French courts. I think Luca's comments would have only added pressure to the FIA to "do the right thing", though in this case, the definition of "the right thing" was supplied by Ferrari. To me, it basically amounted to attempting to sway the jury. It doesn't matter whether Ferrari were willing to make good on their threats or whether the threat had any bearing on any member of the tibunal panel, it's the fact that the threat was made in the first place.
So... what? The FIA has made a lot of spurious rulings in the past few seasons... and hell... I'm surprised McLaren didn't have the guts to do the same for Lewis when the FIA retroactively applied the "re-give the place you took from the guy after you gave him back the place after overtaking him by going back on track" rule to Lewis.
The FIA makes some silly rules. They were going to get called out on this one sooner or later.
I know what you're saying. It's a dirty rotten thing. But Ferrari has the law on their side. If you create rules that are spurious, or unfair... if you fail to follow proper protocol in investigations, and fail to
follow your own rules or clarify them... you can get called out on it, and you will lose.
This, I know from bitter experience of cases our company has lost in court.
If Ferrari really wanted to "bully" the FIA, they could sue for defamation and claim that $100,000 back. But hey, they're getting the Driver's Championship this weekend... all for the low price of an extra $100,000 added to their yearly budget.
) I would avoid commenting on your post (because I figured I would have to eventually). I simply implied I would avoid engaging in a disccusion with you, but now I've managed to drag myself into another one. BTW, my previous post was well within the AUP - if you saw the ridiculousness in your post (where you try pass off your assumption as some well known fact) maybe you wouldn't get so defensive and upset toward me. But it's to be expected from you...
