"I don't understand what happened. Why would you organise a World Motor Sport Council when there is no hard evidence? And why isn't McLaren punished for having Ferrari documents? I was on the phone with Jean Todt and he sounds very disappointed. I completely understand why Luca di Montezemolo got angry with this verdict."

"I am bitter about it: what happened yesterday is serious. On the one hand a verdict of guilt was handed down and on the other, no sanctions were imposed. I cannot understand it. During yesterday's meeting, the McLaren bosses, with no exceptions, admitted that their chief designer had obtained since back in March, prior to the Australian GP, documents from Nigel Stepney. Some of this data was used to prepare a clarification request submitted to the FIA, aimed clearly at us, given that throughout the Melbourne weekend, McLaren team principal and his closest colleagues made statements in which they threw doubt over "some cars." Therefore, such information was in fact used to obtain an advantage over us: not through an improvement in their performance, but instead through limiting ours.

It is important to underline that the information used to try and damage Ferrari through the FIA might be only a part of the information received by McLaren. In an attempt to justify its actions, McLaren has tried to claim the immunity normally accorded to a whistleblower in some legal systems. But it should be noted that usually, an informant or whistleblower goes to the competent authority to denounce something, whereas in this case he went to Ferrari's main rival who, and it is not us who say this but the FIA, took great care not to mention that the information was obtained in this way.

Let us move on. McLaren has confirmed that it has had to install a firewall to prevent further information from Stepney from reaching the team in the form of documents. Furthermore, Coughlan has been asked to tell the very same Stepney to stop sending him information. It is a shame that before this, Coughlan asked him for information on our brake balance system, then went to lunch with him in Spain, before calmly returning home with 780 pages of designs, diagrams, data and a whole lot more - as stated by the FIA release - with which to design, develop run and race a 2007 Ferrari Formula 1 car. As confirmed in that decision yesterday, the violation was already there in the simple possession of the information, which in itself constitutes an enormous advantage in a sport like Formula 1. In Ferrari's opinion, it is like playing a hand of poker with a rival who already knows what cards you are holding.

It remains incomprehensible that apart from possession, one must also demonstrate the effective and visible use of this information on the McLaren car. Actually, this very same fact, on the basis of available information which the FIA used to find McLaren guilty, shows that the offence lies in the possession without the need to prove anything else. The proof is there and this led to the FIA's decision. Therefore I find it difficult to understand how the verdict makes sense. Furthermore, I have to say that the proof of effective use requested by the FIA is impossible for Ferrari to furnish, because of course, Ferrari does not have access to the McLaren car."

"A few weeks after the race in Melbourne, the McLaren team principal proposed that we should reach a sort of agreement to establish a better relationship between our two teams, thus avoiding any future denunciations to the sporting authority. I replied that I found it impossible to believe him, because on several occasions we had seen that certain commitments had always been disregarded by McLaren. There was an exchange of views and, believing in their good faith, I agreed to sign this agreement on 9 June last. Since that time and even earlier, McLaren was perfectly aware, not only of the e-mails sent by their informer within our company, but also of the fact that their chief designer had stayed in contact with him and had received and continued to be in possession of a significant amount of technical information that belonged to us. So, on the one hand, they had come to say "let us trust one another," and on the other they were hiding serious facts such as those just stated above, but making no effort to inform us as would have been in the spirit and to the letter of our agreement.

"Finally, it should be noted that yesterday's meeting was not an appearance before a tribunal, but a meeting of the FIA World Council, at which only McLaren was asked to respond to accusations and in which we were present only as observers. Therefore there was no possibility to play an active role as we would have wished. I was only able to ask a few questions and reply to some, but we were not able to present our case nor the documents to support it.

"This decision remains very disappointing and surprising. It is not acceptable to create a precedent in such an important case in which the guilty verdict for serious and persistent violation of the fundamental principle of sporting honesty does not automatically incur a penalty. For our part, we will press on with the legal actions currently taking place in Italy and in England and we do not rule out taking further action."

It is just like some guy coming to my door and giving some drugs and when i rejected it and told him to scram. the police arrived. Bad luck

Plus they didn't want to use it and got caught in the process of disposing it.

The World Motor Sport Council’s (WMSC) decision not to sanction McLaren for possessing Ferrari data could yet be overturned after FIA President Max Mosley referred the case to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

It follows a plea by the Italian Automobile Club and Italian Motor Sport Commission (ACI-CSAI) on Ferrari’s behalf and means the team will now be able to formally present evidence in the case - something they were unable to do at last Thursday’s hearing.

In a letter to Mosley, ACI-CSAI President Luigi Macaluso said the body could not comprehend how McLaren had not received a penalty, given the Council’s findings that the team had indeed breached the International Sporting Code. He also implied that the result might have been different, had Ferrari been able to give evidence.

In response, Mosley admitted that there had been “suspicious elements” in McLaren’s defence, but agreed with the Council that these elements did not constitute proof of wrongdoing. However, in light of Ferrari’s lack of representation and the importance of the case, Mosley agreed to refer it to the Court of Appeal.

Replying to Macaluso, he said: “Your letter suggests that the outcome may have been different if the Council had given Ferrari further opportunities to be heard beyond those that were in fact offered.

"Because of this and the importance of public confidence in the outcome, I will send this matter to the FIA Court of Appeal under Article 23.1 of the FIA Statutes with a request that the Court hear both Ferrari and McLaren and any other Championship competitor who so requests and determine whether the decision of the WMSC was appropriate and, if not, substitute such other decision as may be just.”

A date for the appeal has not yet been announced.

Then why ask the wife to go to a photocopy shop to make a copy?

Isn't mclaren rich enough to have their own machine?

Mosley admitted that there had been “suspicious elements” in McLaren’s defence

"I was the only one that tried to explain that McLaren was guilty," Macaluso told the Italian media. "For me they are guilty and that’s that."

This is rather odd, given that McLaren boss Ron Dennis referred to the decision of the World Council as having been "unanimous".

"We can confirm that the World that the World Motor Sport Council's decision was unanimous," said an FIA spokesman. "We can only imagine that Mr Macaluso's comments were either taken out of context or were not clearly expressed in the media scrum which ensued outside the hearing."