This is a post taken from the autosport forum:
On the one hand, they believe Stepney is acting as a whistle-blower, going as far as to say that "It is in the interests of Formula 1 that whistle-blowing is encouraged and not discouraged. If team members think that their identity will be revealed they will not whistle-blow."
Yet immediately after that, they took "steps immediately after learning of the contact between Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan in March 2007 to ensure that Mr Stepney and Mr Coughlan ceased having any contact."
Apparently, as the letter goes on to explain, they didn't feel comfortable "with a disgruntled Mr Stepney being in contact with Mr Coughlan". Why? Didn't they just say that "whistle-blowing [should be] encouraged"?...
Furthermore, the very foundation of whistle-blowing is an insider providing information in order to put a stop to an illegal or immoral activity. Taking McLaren's details at face value, they received information from a whistle-blower that Ferrari are breaking the rules.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. McLaren didn't use the information to protest or complain about Ferrari; they used the information to inquire whether they too could run a system like that.
If the FIA replied to their letter "Yes, this system is legal", then it stands to reason that McLaren would have adopted it too.
Would McLaren then have been able to say that Stepney acted as a whisle-blower and that what they did was just and legal?
I don't think there's any doubt Stepney's motive was NOT ideological.
As someone who has had personal experience with people who genuinely risked their works and lives to expose illegal activities in companies or governments, I find McLaren's preaching that Stepney was a whistle-blower very insulting to the real whistle-blowers of this world.
Stepney is no Jeffrey Wigand or Sherron Watkins.
No comments:
Post a Comment