[Richard O'Clery]

Can I abstain, Pete?

The offer of an indemnity was clearly a tactic to justify letting A&H finish the season, and was contrary to reason (if you exclude politics and $ from the equation - yeah, I know).

I'm not sure if the transcripts and reason for verdict have been released yet, but if there is no evidence F-intel was used on the McLarens, on the face of it you would think neither the team or drivers should be penalised.

But, and forgive me if someone has mentioned this on the F1 2007 thread, you don't have to use the IP on the car to benefit from having it in your possession. If F went down a path and decided it didn't work, M would save millions by having that information so they didn't attempt to reinvent a flawed wheel.

Only a small number of people in M need ever know if F data was used by the team to work out what not to do; far less than if something had to be engineered, developed and bolted onto the car. But, if there was evidence of the team colluding with the provider or using the data in any way, the drivers should be penalised along with the team as M's research would be more advanced than it would otherwise be.

As I understand it, the case against M using F-info hasn't been proven yet. I'm looking forward to reading the transcripts and reasons.

Immunity schimunity. How else were the drivers going to testify?