Renault get a 2 year suspended ban

[Valve Bounce]

http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391

This article explains the reason for the jail sentence, among other little gems....

This link is no good. You can only read it if you pay money, and I won't. :(

[ioan]

Those who have time can listen to the WMSC hearing and it's outcome here:
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Pages/wmsc_220909_docs.aspx

Good night everyone, wherever you are! ;)

[Saint Devote]

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

Briatore is not an idiot, he is an excellent businessman who, together with Symonds, had their day of justice pulled out from under them by the French government aka: Renault.

This was not justice, it was a panicked corporation throwing the racing team management to the wolves - by accepting Flavio and Symonds' resignations - in the FIA in order to receive "leniency". You see Renault understand that the FIA is a reactionary authoritarian body that acts capriciously.

They looked over at Mclaren and knew a $100 million fine would collapse the team at least and probably every other formula they are involved with.

The sacrifice in order to appease was Briatore and Symonds - big mistake because the Renault team is finished. Flavio WAS the team.

And to replace him who? Alain Prost? God help them!

And Flavio? Does anyone here believe that this is the end? Briatore is within his right to seek redress through the European justice system and this could be extremely bad for f1. Flavio has nothing to lose and a man with billions to use can do a lot of damage.

The argument that Piquet acted on his own and the team tried to protect him but he used the secret to turn on Renault for firing him can be argued. You think it is far-fetched? Why? This entire case is based on what is essentially a map of technical readings.

There is an idea that perhaps Flavio can use his considerable connections with the billionaires around the world to start a different sort of sanctioning body.

The issue is that the FIA has acted yet nothing has happened to the team itself other than it has sewn the seeds of its own self-destruction.

This is not going to sit well and f1 looks like it accepts cheating - which it does as punishments are subjective.

It aint over and I hope Flavio wreakes havoc. Now that WILL be justice.

[ioan]

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

Bla bla bla.


But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

More bla bla!


Briatore is not an idiot...

Right, he's a scumbag first of all, one with a criminal record. :D

[BDunnell]

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

Briatore is not an idiot, he is an excellent businessman who, together with Symonds, had their day of justice pulled out from under them by the French government aka: Renault.

This was not justice, it was a panicked corporation throwing the racing team management to the wolves - by accepting Flavio and Symonds' resignations - in the FIA in order to receive "leniency". You see Renault understand that the FIA is a reactionary authoritarian body that acts capriciously.

They looked over at Mclaren and knew a $100 million fine would collapse the team at least and probably every other formula they are involved with.

The sacrifice in order to appease was Briatore and Symonds - big mistake because the Renault team is finished. Flavio WAS the team.

And to replace him who? Alain Prost? God help them!

And Flavio? Does anyone here believe that this is the end? Briatore is within his right to seek redress through the European justice system and this could be extremely bad for f1. Flavio has nothing to lose and a man with billions to use can do a lot of damage.

The argument that Piquet acted on his own and the team tried to protect him but he used the secret to turn on Renault for firing him can be argued. You think it is far-fetched? Why? This entire case is based on what is essentially a map of technical readings.

There is an idea that perhaps Flavio can use his considerable connections with the billionaires around the world to start a different sort of sanctioning body.

The issue is that the FIA has acted yet nothing has happened to the team itself other than it has sewn the seeds of its own self-destruction.

This is not going to sit well and f1 looks like it accepts cheating - which it does as punishments are subjective.

It aint over and I hope Flavio wreakes havoc. Now that WILL be justice.

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

[airshifter]

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

Careful now, or he's going to type another post stating how biased and crazy we are for wanting a cheating race fixer out of the sport. But it's just due to our personal bias of course. ;)

[Saint Devote]

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

No, that is only something you would say because as usual you say NOTHING but point your fingers at people here a lot.

Evidently you are a bitter individual disliking the folks in f1 and rejoicing at their problems, yet stuck in the past, attached to a driver that was a cheat par excellence.

You have my deepest pity. :vader:

[Valve Bounce]

Why did Briatore not defend himself?



Sleazy Flav did not defend himself because he was not charged. He departed Renault and therefore didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing where Renault pleaded "no contest". Flav maybe dishonest, but he is not stupid!! :rolleyes:

[Saint Devote]

The issue is who will take over management of the team and how this changes the affects the decision of Alonso and Kubica.

Without Briatore and Symonds in the team, Renault are at this stage the least effective team.

Alonso will definitely want out as the only reason he is at Renault is because of his close friendship and good management that has guided the team to double world titles of Braitore.

I would expect Alonso a definite Ferrari driver in 2010 alongside Raikkonen - unless Mercedes makes Kimi a good offer.

Ferrari have no idea how Massa will be when he returns and that is only possible in 2010. So they could act like Enzo used to - replace the driver because of uncertainty and fire him - Enzo Ferrari was never sentimental over his drivers except Gilles.

But where does Kubica go? Renault HAS to be out of the question along with Toyota - how about Kubica to Mclaren? Excellent.

[Saint Devote]

Sleazy Flav did not defend himself because he was not charged. He departed Renault and therefore didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing where Renault pleaded "no contest". Flav maybe dishonest, but he is not stupid!! :rolleyes:

He did not defend himself because there was no trial - I have stated this in my post. Do not SPIN this story.....

[Valve Bounce]

Selective reading or jumping to conclusions :?:

Let's read that again:


There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

Is it:


Or is it:


Are you a journo too?!

I don't know why I am doing this - I must be completely off my mind but so far, I have agreed 100% with ioan's reasoning on this entire shameful episode. Who on earth could possibly accuse Jr of even having the brains to contemplate anything so complex?

[Valve Bounce]

He did not defend himself because there was no trial - I have stated this in my post. Do not SPIN this story.....

And if he went to the WMSC meeting, he would have had to give evidence or hear Pat Symonds give damning evidence and then there would have been a trial.

Do you honestly think Sleazy Flav wanted a trial? He may be dishonest but he is not stupid!!

[Saint Devote]

And if he went to the WMSC meeting, he would have had to give evidence or hear Pat Symonds give damning evidence and then there would have been a trial.

Do you honestly think Flav wanted a trial? He may be dishonest but he is not stupid!!

How do you know he is dishonest? How do you know he did not want a trial?

You are presuming guilt without any trial. That is disgraceful - in fair justice systems innocence is presumed until proven otherwise in trial beyond reasonable doubt. There is at the minimum lots of reasonable doubt on the side of Flavio and Symonds.

Settlement by corporations for whatever reason, especially in a kangaroo court like the FIA, is arrived at not based on guilt or innocence but on cost or expediency.

I have commented on this in a recent previous post. :vader:

[Valve Bounce]

How do you know he is dishonest? How do you know he did not want a trial?

You are presuming guilt without any trial. That is disgraceful - in fair justice systems innocence is presumed until proven otherwise in trial beyond reasonable doubt. There is at the minimum lots of reasonable doubt on the side of Flavio and Symonds.

Settlement by corporations for whatever reason, especially in a kangaroo court like the FIA, is arrived at not based on guilt or innocence but on cost or expediency.

I have commented on this in a recent previous post. :vader:

First of all, you are wrong in law: In France, he is guilty until proven innocent.

Secondly, you are the only person on earth who has any doubt about both Pat Symonds's and Sleazy Flav's guilt.

In fact, from the transcribe of the FIA's original interview of Pat Symonds, his evasive answers lead me to believe not only that he was well and truly involved in the conspiracy, but it gave the indication that if he was put under oath, he would have spilled the beans on Sleazy Flav.

As I said before, the only reason both Sleazy Flav and Pat Symonds are not on trial is because the were smart enough to depart Renault so that they didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing. It sure as hell wasn't because the FIA didn't want to interrogate the two.

[Valve Bounce]

How do you know he is dishonest?

:vader:

Actually there is a link http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391
about his crooked dealings. Of course you have to pay to read the whole article; maybe you could charge it to Sleazy Flav's account. :p :

[SGWilko]

The Spanish FIA representative is clearly a tool:

I like to think the entire FIA is a collective tool in its current guise....

[SGWilko]

Selective reading or jumping to conclusions :?:

Let's read that again:


There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

Is it:


Or is it:


Are you a journo too?!

This clears it up...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6845194.ece


“I was the one who, when the idea was first suggested to me by Nelson Piquet Jr, should have dismissed it immediately,” he said. “I can only say I did it out of a misguided devotion to my team and not for any personal gain whatsoever. I consider the role I have played in bringing the team to where it is today to be my life’s work

[Mark]

There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?


No I think it is correct.



Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.

The idea was suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr.
Witness X was told of the idea by Pat Symonds.

So it looks like Jr. dreamt it up in the first place. He told Symonds, who instead of firing him on the spot went "Hmm, good idea!" and then told Briatore and Witness X about their plan.

[SGWilko]

This link is no good. You can only read it if you pay money, and I won't. :(

My bad, didn't think that one through very well, did I?

[SGWilko]

Of course, the amazing thing in respect of this latest development is that, while Renault and the FIA have told us no-one else in the Renault team bar the three in question knew of the intention to crash, suddenly a fourth member of the team, Witness X, has come through and saved the day for the FIA in giving them the lifeline they need to keep Renault in, and boot Flavio out.

Convenient or coincidence?

Perhaps Witness X is actually Woman D or Mistress E.... ;)

[Mark]

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

[Valve Bounce]

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

I really can't believe that Jr has the intelligence to suggest anything so complex.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I have noticed that all we talk about on this thread is stories from all parties involved but no concrete evidence except telemetry, which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the case of 'your story' vs 'my story'. Here we have a disenchanted fired driver who said 'black', his former boss who said 'white', another boss who avoided saying anything and the team which pled no contest to whatever has been said by everybody else. I see no smoking gun here. I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and many circumstances point at it indirectly, but from the legalistic point of view the court had no ground for passing such a severe judgment. I just don't think that's right.

[SGWilko]

I really can't believe that Jr has the intelligence to suggest anything so complex.

Eh? Crashing was his party piece, an artform perfected over many races in F1.......

[ArrowsFA1]

It is the case of 'your story' vs 'my story'. Here we have a disenchanted fired driver who said 'black', his former boss who said 'white', another boss who avoided saying anything and the team which pled no contest to whatever has been said by everybody else.
According to the WMSC hearing (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78797)):
...this conspiracy did not go to the heart of the team, but was restricted to the actions of 2 or 3 people
Both Piquet and Symonds have admitted their involvement, although their account differs, so that's 2. The "or 3" presumably refers to Briatore who has indeed has said little.

[SGWilko]

Well, with Witness X coming forward, lets be honest here, how many more within the team knew? People talk, it's human nature.

While a convenient means to an end for Max to watch Flavio fall on his sword, I just don't buy the clique little conveniences that just seemed to have slotted into place.

If this Witness X was party to the Whistlblower policy - which you assume was a condition of contract of employment, why wait till the absolute last possible moment?

I am prepared to eat my hat if it transpires that no-one else in the Renault team new of this plot.

NB - I aint stoopid (only my opinion!!!!), I keep a chocolate hat for such wagers!!! ;)

[Robinho]

if Flav were innocent why isn't he taking Renault to court for wrongful dismissal?

we also now have an additional Renault employee (who Renault found in their investigation, not the FIA's) - do people continue to believe that no-one outsde that room knew of the plot (even if it was only after) given the odd strategy, the Piquets loose lips and the prolifereation of data and suspicion.

and why is one person continuing to protest about Flav being so hard done by? a convicted criminal who avoided jail by fleeing the country before being given an amnesty by a no doubt entirely incorruptable organisation, a man who was at the helm during the traction control Bennetton days (in the car but not used my arse), the fuel rig tampering and now race fixing, to name a few issues with one thing in common - Flav. sure he's been successful, but all that can be questioned for what it appears to be based on - a desire to win at all cost regardless of rules or morals - what a shining example to us all

[SGWilko]

with one thing in common - Flav.

Don't forget Pat......


[Sorry Pat]

[SGWilko]

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

There is also an argument for punishing Jnr here, as he has clearly been 'economical' with the truth - or his version of it.....?

[Saint Devote]

First of all, you are wrong in law: In France, he is guilty until proven innocent.

Secondly, you are the only person on earth who has any doubt about both Pat Symonds's and Sleazy Flav's guilt.

In fact, from the transcribe of the FIA's original interview of Pat Symonds, his evasive answers lead me to believe not only that he was well and truly involved in the conspiracy, but it gave the indication that if he was put under oath, he would have spilled the beans on Sleazy Flav.

As I said before, the only reason both Sleazy Flav and Pat Symonds are not on trial is because the were smart enough to depart Renault so that they didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing. It sure as hell wasn't because the FIA didn't want to interrogate the two.

I know very well what the system in France is which is why I said in FAIR justice systems. France's system is not right.

You can debate a decison whether or not it is a good one to decide against a trial - the FIA is capricious so it is more important what can be arranged before hand.

But I see Symonds has admitted according to a report in Autosport and he is saying he will "eternally regret etc". I am not surprised he turned out to be weak. He looks like a weak character.

Anyway, I still think that the decision to ban them was excessive.

And why Nelsinho decided to become a snitch instead of keeping Flavio as a friend and getting his help to seek another drive in f1 as his manager is also extremely puzzling. Maybe he has not learnt that burning your bridges is always foolish.

Well, its over and time to move on. This weekend is Singapore after all :D

[SGWilko]

And why Nelsinho decided to become a snitch instead of keeping Flavio as a friend and getting his help to seek another drive in f1 as his manager is also extremely puzzling. Maybe he has not learnt that burning your bridges is always foolish.

Presumably because it was Flavio who fired him.

Unless the orders came from Renault bosses, leaving Flav no choice????? Unlikely though.

[ArrowsFA1]

if Flav were innocent why isn't he taking Renault to court for wrongful dismissal?
Fair point. Perhaps he will, although was he actually dismissed? Renault's statement simply said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78668) "...its managing director, Flavio Briatore and its executive director of engineering, Pat Symonds, have left the team."

Wouldn't Renault have distanced themselves more effectively from the actions of 2 or 3 individuals by saying they had been sacked? Perhaps there are legal issues which determine the wording.

Somewhat confusing - of Piquet, Symonds and Briatore two were offered immunity. Two have admitted participating in the fix. Two have been banned from F1 :crazy:

[AndyL]

Of course, the amazing thing in respect of this latest development is that, while Renault and the FIA have told us no-one else in the Renault team bar the three in question knew of the intention to crash, suddenly a fourth member of the team, Witness X, has come through and saved the day for the FIA in giving them the lifeline they need to keep Renault in, and boot Flavio out.

Convenient or coincidence?

Perhaps Witness X is actually Woman D or Mistress E.... ;)

The statement "The trio kept the plan secret from the rest of the team" in the Times article is not a direct quote from Renault, I think it's paraphrasing this passage from the FIA judgement:



The WMSC considers that the evidence indicates that this was a secret conspiracy, kept from the remainder of the team and executed by three individuals who were acting far outside their authority and, arguably, contrary to the interests of Renault F1. No other member of the team was involved in the conspiracy or (with the exception of Witness X) had any knowledge of it Therefore, no other member of the team apart from those directly involved can fairly be singled out for individual criticism.


The documents make it clear that Witness X is a member of the Renault team.

Clearly Flavio will know who witness X is from what's been said. Lucky for Witness X that Flavio is such a forgiving and easy-going person :crazy:

[Knock-on]

Flav and Pat knew they were doomed so when they sat down with Renault, it was agreed that they would part company. If they didn't then they would have been sacked for gross misconduct.

So, that's the end of that. All we have now is Flav knawing over some old bones to (attempt to) save a bit of face. He is defeated and no court case will develop. Just hot air so in latter days he can say to his cronnies how he was going to sue the ass off them but couldn't be bothered, or was asked nicely by X, or was paid a fortune to drop it etc.

[Rudy Tamasz]

According to the WMSC hearing (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78797)):
Both Piquet and Symonds have admitted their involvement, although their account differs, so that's 2. The "or 3" presumably refers to Briatore who has indeed has said little.

Still I do not qualify somebody's confession as a bulletproof evidence. In the former Soviet Union it was frequently used by the repressive justice to make the trials look fair. The inverstigators would just beat the crap out of the suspect and make him/her confess. That was sufficient even in the absence of any other evidence. This is why I always tend to take 'stories' skeptically. Here the power of FIA is such that they did not need to even threaten. The alternative was clear: cooperate and get away or make your point and face the consequences. I do not question the fact of conspiracy, I am just unhappy with the court inability/unwillingness to find more convincing evidence.

To make the analogies, people gave Schumi the benefit of the doubt at Adelaide '94 because nobody had any evidence to prove his 'story' wrong. But three years later at Jerez it was crystal clear he crashed deliberately and his 'story' did not work.

[SGWilko]

Anyone listened yet to the FIA hearing?

Piquet seems awfully vague over who's idea it was to crash....

[SGWilko]

This makes for good listening. Looks like Daddy has pushed Jnr into this.

Way out of his depth, he couldn't even remember what time the race started in Singapore, so how can he be considered a reliable witness?

[BDunnell]

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

Presumably we will never get a satisfactory explanation for this now that the FIA has granted immunity to the relevant parties.

[BDunnell]

if Flav were innocent why isn't he taking Renault to court for wrongful dismissal?

I am no legal expert, but might this have something to do with the specific nature of his departure from the team. I can't recall if we know the details of this.

[BDunnell]

And why Nelsinho decided to become a snitch instead of keeping Flavio as a friend and getting his help to seek another drive in f1 as his manager is also extremely puzzling.

Maybe, just maybe, he felt it was the right thing to do? Or would you prefer it if such matters always went unknown? If so, you are a fine one to comment on whether France's justice system is fair, because you have no concept of justice at all.

[BDunnell]

Wouldn't Renault have distanced themselves more effectively from the actions of 2 or 3 individuals by saying they had been sacked? Perhaps there are legal issues which determine the wording.

Precisely.

[BDunnell]

Still I do not qualify somebody's confession as a bulletproof evidence. In the former Soviet Union it was frequently used by the repressive justice to make the trials look fair. The inverstigators would just beat the crap out of the suspect and make him/her confess. That was sufficient even in the absence of any other evidence. This is why I always tend to take 'stories' skeptically. Here the power of FIA is such that they did not need to even threaten. The alternative was clear: cooperate and get away or make your point and face the consequences. I do not question the fact of conspiracy, I am just unhappy with the court inability/unwillingness to find more convincing evidence.

But if it doesn't exist, the end result could be to do absolutely nothing, which wouldn't be right in this case because something clearly did happen that wasn't right. There is no 'smoking gun' e-mail or written document, for example, and there was never going to be. So far we have heard no complaints about confessions being forced out of the relevant parties under duress.

[Sonic]

Way out of his depth, he couldn't even remember what time the race started in Singapore, so how can he be considered a reliable witness?

Damn! I wish you could have been on the last Jury I was on. :D

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78798

I suppose Pat is the only one I have any sympathy for.

it seems to me that he has not lied all the way through and refused to answer when it ment he couldn't tell the truth so his clear statement that it was Piquets idea holds a lot of sway with me.

In fact, the Piquets coming up with an idea like this to secure a drive (and have a blackmail chip to boot) demonstrates motive, opportunity and fits in with character of Snr.

Flav has had it coming for a long time as well and I'm glad he has gone. He was only ever in F1 for the business and ego rather than the racing. Good riddance.

Pat though has put his heart and soul into the team. He was there at the beginning and has sacrificed much. His personal dissapointment and regret must be consuming. Why, why, why didn't you just send Jnr packing with a flea in his ear when he came up with this preposterous idea Pat? WHY!

[Rudy Tamasz]

But if it doesn't exist, the end result could be to do absolutely nothing, which wouldn't be right in this case because something clearly did happen that wasn't right. There is no 'smoking gun' e-mail or written document, for example, and there was never going to be. So far we have heard no complaints about confessions being forced out of the relevant parties under duress.

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

[BDunnell]

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

I totally see where you're coming from, but I think in this case sufficient evidence has been presented. Have any of the parties involved actually denied it? I feel that a more dangerous precedent is to do nothing because the evidence only comes in the form of stories — which is, after all, inevitable — and then open the floodgates to other teams realising that they can fix races by means of unattributable conversations.

[Knock-on]

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

Rudy. This case seems pretty open and shut.

Jnr says he has cheated with 2 other people.

One has admitted it was true that he cheated.

A witness has come forward and confirmed the accusation.

Telementary data backs up the deliberate crash.

There was motive for the crash.

Where is the doubt in this case. Only Flav is blowing hot air and I will bet physical money with you that his threat of taking everyone and their dog to court comes to nothing.

[Valve Bounce]

But I see Symonds has admitted according to a report in Autosport and he is saying he will "eternally regret etc". I am not surprised he turned out to be weak. He looks like a weak character.
:D

Quite unlike your hero Sleazy Flav.

[Big Ben]

Rudy. This case seems pretty open and shut.

Jnr says he has cheated with 2 other people.

One has admitted it was true that he cheated.

A witness has come forward and confirmed the accusation.

Telementary data backs up the deliberate crash.

There was motive for the crash.

Where is the doubt in this case. Only Flav is blowing hot air and I will bet physical money with you that his threat of taking everyone and their dog to court comes to nothing.

the same witnesse said that it was Piquet that came up with the idea while his ´confession´ didn´t include this little insignificant detail. I think the immunity given to him should be reconsidered since it was based on false facts. Or ´maybe´ this was just the revenge of the allspitefull one.

[wedge]

Perhaps Witness X is actually Woman D or Mistress E.... ;)

Deep Throat! :D

[Mark]

Legally speaking under English/Welsh law, which I believe is what applies here as Renault operates from England. You can still sue for wrongful or constructive dismissal even if you resigned yourself. If you can prove that you had no option but to quit.

However no case Flavio Briatore brought would be likely to be successful. As there is overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct.

[Valve Bounce]

Legally speaking under English/Welsh law, which I believe is what applies here as Renault operates from England. You can still sue for wrongful or constructive dismissal even if you resigned yourself. If you can prove that you had no option but to quit.

However no case Flavio Briatore brought would be likely to be successful. As there is overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct.

Flav was going to sue the two Piquets also. He wouldn't dare sue over this case as a lot more evidence may come out further incriminating him. I reckon the guy is all bluff but no show anymore.

[WSRfan82]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O7zZDNBKks :p

LMFAOOOO!!!!!!

[I am evil Homer]

I agree with what you are saying and I feel disappointed that a man of his experience would choose to deceive the entire paddock with such a risky strategy. The fact that he is banned from F1 is a punishment he'll have to live with and could ultimately have brought his career to a premature end. It also means F1 is worse off as a result too, as he is one of the best minds in current F1, and by doing it, he has forced himself into early retirement..

Stupid, stupid boy :(

What I still don't understand is Piquet was offered immunity to come forward about Renault, yet it now seems that it was Nelsinho who came up with the idea and put it to Symonds, Witness X and Flav? Hopefully we'll never see him in F1 again either - although his results suggest we won't ;)

As for Symonds...it's odd what seemingly decent people, as Pat appears to be, will do when under pressure. Renault lacked results, the car was a dog, sponsors were unhappy. In the cold light of day it was idiotic but many people in many walks of life make similar mistakes...just look at banks!

[ioan]

I know very well what the system in France is which is why I said in FAIR justice systems. France's system is not right.


You know nothing.

[AndyL]

But I see Symonds has admitted according to a report in Autosport and he is saying he will "eternally regret etc". I am not surprised he turned out to be weak. He looks like a weak character.

A weak character would probably have taken the immunity offer and implicated Briatore.

[Somebody]

Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically.
Thing about that is that, today, it's virtually impossible to bring out a red flag - in days of yore, Piquet's little stunt would have done so, but now they bring out the SC.

Remember, the last non-weather-related red flag was six years ago. Since when the regs have been altered to raise the bar still further for a red flag situation (basically, the track would need to be literally impassible because of weather - as in Malaysia this year - or because the track was completely blocked by a pile-up).

[BobbyC]

Thing about that is that, today, it's virtually impossible to bring out a red flag - in days of yore, Piquet's little stunt would have done so, but now they bring out the SC.

Remember, the last non-weather-related red flag was six years ago. Since when the regs have been altered to raise the bar still further for a red flag situation (basically, the track would need to be literally impassible because of weather - as in Malaysia this year - or because the track was completely blocked by a pile-up).

The penalty the FIA is giving does sound extremely harsh.

I have here the rule at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway "Bullring" race track for something similar to what Piquet did.

Rule 1.12.1 "The Race Director reserves the right to penalize any driver one (1) lap for intentionally causing a (safety car)." Most tracks also state no wave-arounds or beneficiary rule.

NASCAR has a rule, Article 12, Rule 4, Section N, "intentionally causing a (safety car) during the race".

A 10-point penalty would have been suitable for Renault in that race for "intentionally causing a safety car".

[Rudy Tamasz]

Hm, interesting. But then the attitude to bending or breaking the rules is different in Europe and the U.S.

[Knock-on]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78843

Good old Flav planning revenge now.

It's obvious he wouldn't have much of a chance through the courts but what about a Christmas best seller. I would read that!!!

Could you imagine the s**t he has in his back pocket? The first Schumacher WDC fix, the dodgy deals and the electronic cheats of Tad's era.

Apart from the next head of the FIA, the current head of the FIA and Bernie, I don't think there's anyone that knows more about the shady side of F1. It's going to come out one day and perhaps this is it?

[Dave B]

Flav's got no dignity. At least Symmonds made a sincere apology, Flav's just making himself look even more bitter and stupid that usual.

[ioan]

Flav's got no dignity. At least Symmonds made a sincere apology, Flav's just making himself look even more bitter and stupid that usual.

Exactly.

@Knockie: I wouldn't lose time with reading what a liar says (he will not be writing it himself anyway).

[I am evil Homer]

Yeah I mean who will actually believe anything that he says now. He's discredited himself and should shut up. Pat does seem genuinely sorry and realises now what a horrific scheme it was and his dignity is a credit to him

Dignity and Flavio Briatore will never be seen in the same article, let alone the same sentence.

[Valve Bounce]

Mutterings of a betrayed dodgy character - should make for a good reading and subsequent movie. Sleazy Flav might even be able to star in it.

[ArrowsFA1]

The Renault F1 team has agreed to pay substantial damages and court costs to former driver Nelson Piquet and his father for libellous comments relating to the race fix scandal that surrounded the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88614

[SGWilko]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88614

Substantial damages eh? Sometimes an apology just isn't enough.....

[Tazio]

Substantial damages eh? Sometimes an apology just isn't enough.....

What a sad state of affairs. I'll have to defer to "The Bard" on this one:




All:
God save your majesty!


Cade:
I thank you, good people&#8212]Dick:[/B]
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Cade:
Nay, that I mean to do.Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

[SGWilko]

What a sad state of affairs. I'll have to defer to "The Bard" on this one:

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

Henley, D. 1994

Henley also references William Shakespeares Henry VI pt.II when he states, "old billy was right, lets kill all the lawyers and kill em tonight", echoing Shakespeares line; "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

[Tazio]

Henley, D. 1994

Pino's going to brain me for this but I just can't he'p it ]6kMw6U9KUJ4[/youtube]

[SGWilko]

Pino's going to brain me for this but I just can't he'p it ;)


6kMw6U9KUJ4

Why's that, he more of a 'Chas 'n Dave' man is he....????

He won't get that, will he?

[Tazio]

Why's that, he more of a 'Chas 'n Dave' man is he....????

He won't get that, will he?I've been warned about posting irrelevant YouTube’s (however relevant I think they are) :uhoh: :s mokin:

[ioan]

Substantial damages eh? Sometimes an apology just isn't enough.....

Apologies are the most hypocrite concept ever.
You inflict someone, sometimes irreparable, physical or moral damage and an apology should even out all the bad done?!
I do not agree with this view of yours.

[ioan]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88614

Justice has been served.

[Daniel]

Apologies are the most hypocrite concept ever.
You inflict someone, sometimes irreparable, physical or moral damage and an apology should even out all the bad done?!
I do not agree with this view of yours.

Agreed. If the forum operated on this policy no infractions or bans would be dished out.

[Daniel]

I'm abit torn over this as we've never really found out the true involvement of everyone involved. Piquet Jr went along with it whether he was threatened or not, but he lied in the process and for many months IMO. We are yet to see a public apology from Piquet Jr like the one Lewis was made to do after his lying backside tried to mislead the stewards and the Singapore crash was on a grander scale. Maybe the Piquet's should think about donating their winning's to a charity that deals with people who are going through rehabilitation from brain injuries sustained in crashes and so forth? My opinion would go up certainly as their were 3 significant liars in this scandal.

I know you were very vocal in your support of Piquet Jr at the time ioan, what are your opinions on this? :)

Huh?

Piquet claimed that Flabio told him to crash, Renno + Flabio said he lied, he didn't and was awarded damages. Simple as that. No need to arrange a day where everyone changed their facebook picture to a photo of their favourite gerbil to increase awareness of something or other.

[Daniel]

What are you talking about?
Flavio may have told him to crash thats fair enough but Nelson had options and he chose to crash his race car into a wall to fix a Grand Prix result. If someone tells me to murder someone and I do it, should I get off because I was told by my boss? I think not. All thats been settled here is the issue that Piquet was on the surface of it, right that he was ordered to do something.

All three men cheated, this is just tit for tat squabbling over who slandered who. It doesn't take any of the seriousness away from what was committed IMO.

No. Flabio did tell him to crash and as Flabio had leverage over him Piquet did the wrong thing and didn't tell the truth initially. No one says he should get off but he came clean and Flabio didn't.

[Daniel]

I agree with you on this point, but I can't help but think this is a complete waste of column space. Its effectively news that a team has paid a cheat damages for reporting incorrect information over who ordered him to cheat. Flavio isn't even involved in this little case, and this makes me wonder whether Piquet will now win damages off Flav. A cheat getting paid off by another cheat?? Perhaps we as fans are entitled to some of the action? I find it all abit strange if I'm honest. :)
This particular case doesn't involve you or I but if you fancy a go, feel free to sue Renno or Flabbers.

[SGWilko]

This particular case doesn't involve you or I but if you fancy a go, feel free to sue Renno or Flabbers.

I'd sue pretty boy Piquet just for driving like my Grandma.......

[ioan]

I'm abit torn over this as we've never really found out the true involvement of everyone involved. Piquet Jr went along with it whether he was threatened or not, but he lied in the process and for many months IMO. We are yet to see a public apology from Piquet Jr like the one Lewis was made to do after his lying backside tried to mislead the stewards and the Singapore crash was on a grander scale. Maybe the Piquet's should think about donating their winning's to a charity that deals with people who are going through rehabilitation from brain injuries sustained in crashes and so forth? My opinion would go up certainly as their were 3 significant liars in this scandal.

I know you were very vocal in your support of Piquet Jr at the time ioan, what are your opinions on this? :)


What are you talking about?
Flavio may have told him to crash thats fair enough but Nelson had options and he chose to crash his race car into a wall to fix a Grand Prix result. If someone tells me to murder someone and I do it, should I get off because I was told by my boss? I think not. All thats been settled here is the issue that Piquet was on the surface of it, right that he was ordered to do something.

All three men cheated, this is just tit for tat squabbling over who slandered who. It doesn't take any of the seriousness away from what was committed IMO.

Looks to me that you should be one of those taking profit of Piquets money through one of the charities you are campaigning for.
Piquet's court case against Renault was about libel and Flab is next on the list.

As you can see I am still supporting the Piquets against cheats like Flab and Santander's teflon boy.

[Tazio]

Each had their part in the deceit as far as I am concerned,It is what is commonly referred to as collusion. I thought that part was a given!
I don't think there is an ounce of moral fiber between those three "compinches"!

[Retro Formula 1]

As you can see I am still supporting the Piquets against cheats like Flab and Santander's teflon boy.

Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well and there is no evidence Alonso was involved other than circumstantial.

[Daniel]

Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well as being bloody slow and although there is no evidence Alonso was involved you do wonder.

Edited for accuracy :D

[ioan]

Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well and there is no evidence Alonso was involved other than circumstantial.

Sweet denial, I wish I could try this feeling but I just can't do it.

[ioan]

Why would I be eligible to take profit from a charity that deals with people recovering from brain injuries??

It was just a subtle joke, sorry for forgetting the smileys.

[ioan]

Edited for accuracy :D

:D So true!

[Mia 01]

Alonso must have understood the thing, if not, it wouldn´t work.

Wonder whats up next in Ferrari.

[Big Ben]

it seems only fair that after showing his amazing pace for a year and a half and then leaving because his high moral standards could not allow him to race in such a disgraceful team he should be paid some more money. I'm glad these 2 shameless @$$h0les are gone... I hope we'll never see them back.

[jens]

I find it almost impossible to believe that Alonso was not involved in the crashgate like some claim. First of all he was given a very weird strategy (he pitted on lap 12 or something like that) and surely he must have known why was that going to be useful, otherwise he would have had questions to ask.

[Big Ben]

I find it almost impossible to believe that Alonso was not involved in the crashgate like some claim. First of all he was given a very weird strategy (he pitted on lap 12 or something like that) and surely he must have known why was that going to be useful, otherwise he would have had questions to ask.

and that's exactly why this thread was brought back to light... I'm glad Mia is not getting ignored and lonely with here sharp one liners... she must know by now that one of her cheap digs at FA will make the haters chorus start singing

[ioan]

You could wrap it up in paper, apply bunches of balloons and get it delivered to my door by a clown, I still wouldn't find a joke about brain damage funny.

I'll give the clown a ton of sense of humor to bring you as well!

[driveace]

I also find it hard to believe that Alonso had NO knowledge of the plan to try to help him win the race.

[MAX_THRUST]

there would have been a discussion along the lines of "we'll pit eary in case there's a yellow", (as it was street circuit). Fernando would have been told that at least, some times you don't have to discuss details when your the number one driver. The team are gonna help you. I' sure Fernando new something, but there's the term plausible deniability. Presidents and prime ministers use it.

[ioan]

He knew I'm sure, but that isn't the issue here. Piquet getting paid damages by a team who published incorrect facts about how he cheated is the issue.

The problem is that your view of the facts is skewed, the team cheated, not Piquet.

[SGWilko]

The team ordered Piquet to crash. He crashed. They cheated. He cheated. Simple as that.

Piquet crashed because he was told to. He was told to do so to help the team. He felt that if he didn't do it, he'd lose his job....

I ask you, if your boss told/asked you to be dishonest, and if you didn't you'd lose your job would you do it - or tell him to shove it up his ar5e........sideways.

Now, add in that the piquets are not exactly strapped for cash............

[ioan]

The team ordered Piquet to crash. He crashed. They cheated. He cheated. Simple as that.

Still skewed, simple as that.

[donKey jote]

The team ordered Piquet to crash. He crashed. They cheated. He cheated. Simple as that.
no no... the Big Bad Boo man ordered the team to order Piquet to crash.
boohoo :dozey:

[markabilly]

team cheats and does something illegal, like a little nitro in the fuel.
Driver goes down with the team as he was the benefitee of the cheator

team cheats to have driver win race by crash out or to move over, red rover, , no penalty on the benefitee

[Mia 01]

If you are lying or cheating to get one place or a vin upp, thoose things will hunt you down for ever.

But in my book support a crash out is a bit worse than lying if that comfort you Henner. Risk other peoples life deservs hard punishment.

[Retro Formula 1]

Originally Posted by skc http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=868915#post868915)
Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well as being bloody slow and although there is no evidence Alonso was involved you do wonder.


Edited for accuracy :D

Can you not edit my words in a quote attributed to me please. It's very disrespectfull :(

My words are:


Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well and there is no evidence Alonso was involved other than circumstantial.

Please do not alter them but feel free to comment on them

[Retro Formula 1]

Sweet denial, I wish I could try this feeling but I just can't do it.

There is circumstantial evidence and rumour. That in no way proves he was involved but just that After the event, with Hindsight, it looks logical that the Renault strategy was designed to favour Alonso.

Lewis lied to the Stewards, Alonso blackmailed Ron, Piquet crashed on purpose in a plan to give Alonso the win. These are facts that are proven but apart from suggestion, there is no proof that Alonso had any involvement.

That might be denial in your eyes but in mine it's the facts that are available at this time.

[Daniel]

Skc, it's common on forums to edit a quote to make a humourous point and say edited for accuracy. It is not disrespectful in any way.

[Retro Formula 1]

there would have been a discussion along the lines of "we'll pit eary in case there's a yellow", (as it was street circuit). Fernando would have been told that at least, some times you don't have to discuss details when your the number one driver. The team are gonna help you. I' sure Fernando new something, but there's the term plausible deniability. Presidents and prime ministers use it.


I don't know if he knew or didn't know but you make a very fair point.

It might be a good strategy to pit early on a Street circuit but it looks pretty dodgy considering the sequence of events afterwards. I find it most telling that Alonso has refused to accept that this win is in any way tainted.

3 people are proven to be involved in this and Piquet is just as, if not more culpable than the other 2 because he could have stopped it and exposed a very dangerous issue. He would have been hailed as a hero and not the villian he has become along with the other 2.

[Retro Formula 1]

Skc, it's common on forums to edit a quote to make a humourous point and say edited for accuracy. It is not disrespectful in any way.

Can I make it any clearer. DO NOT EDIT MY F*CKING POSTS AND LEAVE THEM ATTRIBUTED TO ME (Shouting intended)

If you're so dense that you cannot understand then kindly block me.

[Daniel]

Do not overreact to a lighthearted joke where I clearly stated that I had edited your post. If I see an opportunity to do it again to make a lighthearted joke then I will.

If you're so uppity that you can't handle a joke then perhaps the internet isn't for you

[pino]

Skc, it's common on forums to edit a quote to make a humourous point and say edited for accuracy. It is not disrespectful in any way.

It might be common on other forums but isn't allowed in here so please don't do it again.

[Daniel]

What's the issue though Pino? Anyone can see that its clearly not what he's said. Skc is just being pedantic. To edit someones post and try to pass it off as their words IS rude and shouldn't be allowed but is this forum so far in the past that we don't allow editing of posts to make a lighthearted point whilst making it clear that an edit has been made.

[Retro Formula 1]

What's the issue though Pino? Anyone can see that its clearly not what he's said. Skc is just being pedantic. To edit someones post and try to pass it off as their words IS rude and shouldn't be allowed but is this forum so far in the past that we don't allow editing of posts to make a lighthearted point whilst making it clear that an edit has been made.

The point is that you are possibly the rudest person on this forum, calling people c**ts, saying they talk cr*p, editing their posts to make some childish point you're attempting to make and then whining when people quite reasonably challenge your opinion.

Perhaps you need to look at your behaviour on here and decide if a respectfull, adult forum is the right place for you or whether you would be happier in those 'other' forums?

No disrespect intended.

[pino]

What's the issue though Pino? Anyone can see that its clearly not what he's said. Skc is just being pedantic. To edit someones post and try to pass it off as their words IS rude and shouldn't be allowed but is this forum so far in the past that we don't allow editing of posts to make a lighthearted point whilst making it clear that an edit has been made.

Daniel, yes you did put a note saying that the post was edited, unfortunatelly my experience in here tells me that not everyone do that. So to prevent more trouble and more work for me, I won't allow it not even if it's for fun...especially on F1 forum :s

[Daniel]

The point is that you are possibly the rudest person on this forum, calling people c**ts, saying they talk cr*p, editing their posts to make some childish point you're attempting to make and then whining when people quite reasonably challenge your opinion.

Perhaps you need to look at your behaviour on here and decide if a respectfull, adult forum is the right place for you or whether you would be happier in those 'other' forums?

No disrespect intended.

I called Bernie a c**t. A number of people use colourful language on the forum but Pino is very heavy handed if it's directed at someone. I never called anyone a c**t. What's wrong with saying someone is talking crap? It's not a swear word and it's a reasonable thing to say.

I got annoyed at people constantly attacking my opinion when I said that this is how I felt and that I respected their opinion and they should respect mine.

You may think the point was childish, that's your opinion and I respect that, but AFAIK making a childish point isn't an offence on this forum.

If you took offence at my edit I apologise, it was not my intention to represent my edit as being what you said but I did clearly label it as an edit.

[pino]

Please back to the topic now :)

[Daniel]

Daniel, yes you did put a note saying that the post was edited, unfortunatelly my experience in here tells me that not everyone do that. So to prevent more trouble and more work for me, I won't allow it not even if it's for fun...especially on F1 forum :s

Make a rule, if it's labelled and not offensive like the below


I like to eat dogs

then it should be allowed. Like I said above, I apologise if SKC got offended (I'm being honest) but as you can see by me saying that I had edited his post my intention wasn't to misrepresent. If I hadn't done that then string me up but I did label it as so and no one reading that should have thought that this was what he said. It is because there are so many rules on this forum that people get so worked up. I said crap and someone's getting offended!!! It's not a swear word, nor is it even rude in the slightest.

[Daniel]

Please back to the topic now :)

I have started another topic on it in FF so that's it for me :)

[ioan]

Can I make it any clearer. DO NOT EDIT MY F*CKING POSTS AND LEAVE THEM ATTRIBUTED TO ME (Shouting intended)

If you're so dense that you cannot understand then kindly block me.

FFS, there is no need to get worked up like this over a harmless joke.

[ioan]

Daniel, yes you did put a note saying that the post was edited, unfortunatelly my experience in here tells me that not everyone do that. So to prevent more trouble and more work for me, I won't allow it not even if it's for fun...especially on F1 forum :s

You're killing the lil' fun we ever get around here.
WTH, grown up people should be able to understand a bit of harmless joking without the need for censorship, especially when it is stated that it was done for fun.

Anyway it looks to me that Alonso fans are just like him very very touchy, to say the least. Not easy to have a discussion with such people when you know that the toys can start flying at any moment.

[Bagwan]

Daniel , perhaps , try this :


It is because there are so many rules on this forum that people get so worked up.

More like :
"It's because there are so many donkeys on this forum that people get so hee-hawed up."


It's the same , but vitally different .


And , don't be mad , as I really do come to this site to hear everyone's opinion , even yours .
Forgive me if mine differs , and I chose to counter yours with my own .
It's in my nature to debate .

And , I look forward to our next round .

[Daniel]

Daniel , perhaps , try this :



More like :
"It's because there are so many donkeys on this forum that people get so hee-hawed up."


It's the same , but vitally different .


And , don't be mad , as I really do come to this site to hear everyone's opinion , even yours .
Forgive me if mine differs , and I chose to counter yours with my own .
It's in my nature to debate .

And , I look forward to our next round .

Hey Bagwan, feel free to edit my post ;)

I don't mind when people's opinions differ to mine but the constant pestering of "who do YOU think is better than Bernie" was annoying. At the end of the day you should have the freedom to say something like "Hitler didn't do the best job of leading Germany in the 30's and 40's" without having to provide the names of other people you feel would be better when you're talking about such a controversial figure (understatement when talking about Hitler of course!!!!) whose ideas are disliked by a lot of people as Bernie is.

We're not talking about someone who is universally liked by people, Bernie is a very divisive figure and whilst you've gone your way with your thoughts on Bernie I went mine and I don't feel the need to ask anyone for a list of people who Bernie is better than.

Peace to everyone but you know who :)

[CNR]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/david_hunt_group_lotus_in_the_wrong_over_f1_move_1 _750406

given Renault still have a suspended sentence tied to them after bringing the sport into disrepute in 2008, are they doing so again by deliberately and willfully confusing the public over the Lotus brand?”

[donKey jote]

Sweet daniel, I wish I could try this feeling but I just can't do it.

ioan take it to PM or get a room ;) :p :s ailor: :bandit:

[Tazio]

ioan take it to PM or get a room ;) :p :s ailor: :bandit:

Mister you are reported you to the fun police!!!! :laugh:

[ioan]

ioan take it to PM or get a room ;) :p :s ailor: :bandit:

I always knew that you are a jealous dirty lil' forumer!
You can send me a PM if you wish! :p

[Bagwan]

Hey Bagwan, feel free to edit my post ;)

I don't mind when people's opinions differ to mine but the constant pestering of "who do YOU think is better than Bernie" was annoying. At the end of the day you should have the freedom to say something like "Hitler didn't do the best job of leading Germany in the 30's and 40's" without having to provide the names of other people you feel would be better when you're talking about such a controversial figure (understatement when talking about Hitler of course!!!!) whose ideas are disliked by a lot of people as Bernie is.

We're not talking about someone who is universally liked by people, Bernie is a very divisive figure and whilst you've gone your way with your thoughts on Bernie I went mine and I don't feel the need to ask anyone for a list of people who Bernie is better than.

Peace to everyone but you know who :)

Firstly , I won't edit your post , as it is not allowed , and , more importantly , gets folks upset .

Secondly , in debate , it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions of the other side , in order to further your point .
It is part of debate .
You need to expect it .

You burned Bernie for the job he did and that's fair enough . You're entitled to think so .
But , not answering the question of who might have been better at the helm gives the impression that there is nobody , and I'm quite sure that's not your intention .

You got angry , it seemed , that the question was asked , and then re-iterated a number of times by other members .
It appeared that you felt that others were ganging up on you , from your reaction that Easy's and my opinions were the only ones tolerated .

In my view , nothing could have been further from the truth .

As I saw it , the debate was about to work it's way into whether , indeed , there was another who could have done it better .
That's why we asked .

And , maybe I sent it off kilter with what I posted , but the intention was to move the speculation back to those inside the paddock .

Perhaps Jackie Stewart ?
Or , Ron Dennis ?

It would have had to be someone withing the ranks to be trusted , wouldn't it ?