Flavio is still a little grumpy.......

[gloomyDAY]

and decided to sue the FIA.

Can't this guy take a hint? Go away! (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79569)

[ioan]

I wonder why does he believe that he does have teh right to be part of F1?!
Should we all sue the FIA because it's rules are to strict for us to parade on the pit wall every 2nd week?

The FIA can't be forced to associate itself with a cheater so I don''t see how Flabio believes he can win anything in the court.

[Roamy]

He believes he has a case and that is why civilized countries has court systems. Apparently he has interest in further management in F1

[Garry Walker]

He believes he has a case and that is why civilized countries has court systems. Apparently he has interest in further management in F1

F1 makes flavio lots of money. Driver management that is.

[ioan]

He believes he has a case and that is why civilized countries has court systems. Apparently he has interest in further management in F1

However the FIA has no interest in having him involved with their championship and it's their right to chose who they accept in their select club.

[Dave B]

Flavio's failure to even attempt to defend himself to the FIA must render his case inadmissable, or at least laughable.

[ioan]

Flavio's failure to even attempt to defend himself to the FIA must render his case inadmissable, or at least laughable.

And Renault kicking him out only adds to that.

[Copse]

and decided to sue the FIA.

Can't this guy take a hint? Go away! (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79569)

The thing is, sleazebag or not, I think his suit has some merits. He has basically been driven out of what has been his business for the past fifteen years by a sort-of "private court". For such a thing to stand in a civilized democracy, things need to be handled very, very properly. As we all know, the FIA never handles things properly, fairly or transparently. They handle then behind closed doors, with pre-decided outcomes, and with specific goals in mind.

As much as I hate it, Flavio has not been treated fairly. In particular, the point of selective immunities looks very damaging. The question isn't so much whether his punishment fits the crime (it does), but if it was decided in a proper way. It wasn't.

If Max wasn't already on his merry way, I'd support Flavio in this case. The FIA needs a serious overhaul of its decision making processes, and a good slap on the wrist by a French court could be a start.

[ioan]

The thing is, sleazebag or not, I think his suit has some merits. He has basically been driven out of what has been his business for the past fifteen years by a sort-of "private court".

It's the same people from that private court who let him in this world to start with, they hold the right to throw him out in case he is damaging their interests.

For example, let's say that a company scores a great deal with a big manufacturer and they start earning big money on this contract, however a couple of years later it comes out that this company has been using illegal tactics on the market.
I'm more than sure that the contract they owned with the manufacturer will be void straight away because of the image problem involved, and no court in the world, but a very corrupt one, would support a cheat in such a case.


As much as I hate it, Flavio has not been treated fairly. In particular, the point of selective immunities looks very damaging. The question isn't so much whether his punishment fits the crime (it does), but if it was decided in a proper way. It wasn't.

It was decided by the rule makers themselves, so it is as proper a way as possible in such a case, the case of a non governmental organization that has it's own set of rules.

Do you think that someone can stop a select club from throwing out one of it's members who isn't complying with it's rules?

[Easy Drifter]

The whole situation is very confusing.
The FIA have their rules and controls.
Where does their actual authority come from?
The big question is do the FIA rules, way of doing things, contravene legalities.
The FIA is based in Paris but their (sort of) control of the 'sport' is world wide.
What laws apply to them?
Are they under French jurisdiction?
Are they under EU jurisdiction?
Should the International Court in the Hague have any interest?
The next question does anybody really give a ----?
Is Mad Max really JC or Allah?

Methinks I might have had a little too much joy juice.

[ioan]

The whole situation is very confusing.
The FIA have their rules and controls.
Where does their actual authority come from?

Can you invite someone to a party at your house?! You sure can.
Can you throw them out when they missbehave? Sure you can.
Where does your authority come from? I think the answer is obvious.



Should the International Court in the Hague have any interest?

Only governments can appeal to the Hague International Court.



The next question does anybody really give a ----?


Maybe Flav! :D

[Copse]

It's the same people from that private court who let him in this world to start with, they hold the right to throw him out in case he is damaging their interests.

It was decided by the rule makers themselves, so it is as proper a way as possible in such a case, the case of a non governmental organization that has it's own set of rules.

Do you think that someone can stop a select club from throwing out one of it's members who isn't complying with it's rules?

That clubs are subject to laws has been proven many times. Laws regarding discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc have successfully been used in a number of countries to force organisations to get in line with society.

And, the FIA isn't any private club. It is a club that claims to control all motor racing activities in the world. By declaring themselves to have that position, and by acting like they do, they subject themselves to the anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of any jurisdiction. As seen before, the EU have claimed jurisdiction over how FIA handles the commercial ownership of e.g. F1, and managed them to create the separation that now (in a formal sense) exists between the rule making of F1, and the promotion of the sport. Being dominant, the FIA can not do as they like, but have to live with the interference of various governments.

Since they do virtually have the power to prevent Flavio and Symonds from working anywhere in the motorsport industry, the sentence is not just comparable to firing somebody, it is preventing them from ever acting in their profession (motorsports team and driver manager, motorsports technical director) for any company that might employ them. That might, if memory serves me right, actually fall under various international treaties regarding labour rights.

[ioan]

That clubs are subject to laws has been proven many times. Laws regarding discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc have successfully been used in a number of countries to force organisations to get in line with society.

There's been no such discrimination in this case.
Also AFAIK laws discriminate against criminals too, like priving them from liberty and so on.


And, the FIA isn't any private club. It is a club that claims to control all motor racing activities in the world. By declaring themselves to have that position, and by acting like they do, they subject themselves to the anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of any jurisdiction. As seen before, the EU have claimed jurisdiction over how FIA handles the commercial ownership of e.g. F1, and managed them to create the separation that now (in a formal sense) exists between the rule making of F1, and the promotion of the sport. Being dominant, the FIA can not do as they like, but have to live with the interference of various governments.

There was no anti-trust or monopoly legislation broken either in this case.

Let me remind you that the IOC has the right to ban cheating athletes, trainers and doctors from taking part in IOC related competition without the need to have a law suit.
How is that different from what the FIA did with Briatore?

[gloomyDAY]

Not going down quietly....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79630

[Copse]

There's been no such discrimination in this case.
No, there hasn't. I was just making the point that private organisations and clubs are affected by the laws of the countries where they are registered, and can not always do as they like.



Let me remind you that the IOC has the right to ban cheating athletes, trainers and doctors from taking part in IOC related competition without the need to have a law suit.

They sure can. But that does not mean that the banned athlete can't take them to court to have the decision challenged. A quick Google search gave http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D8TU0THG0.html as an example
It's the same thing here. The FIA can ban people, but they might need to be able to prove in court that there was good evidence and that the severity was justified.

[motetarip]

The "fact" remains that Flavio compelled his employee Piquet to stage a potentially life-threatening crash. Cheating is one thing but human life was endangered so I don't consider the punishment is harsh. If Flavio valued his income stream from the sport then he should have kept squeaky clean. Hopefully the court will uphold the ban.

UK legislation would likely impose a prison sentence for a similar offence under health and safety law, so I think Flavio probably got off lightly in that respect.

[Roamy]

The "fact" remains that Flavio compelled his employee Piquet to stage a potentially life-threatening crash. Cheating is one thing but human life was endangered so I don't consider the punishment is harsh. If Flavio valued his income stream from the sport then he should have kept squeaky clean. Hopefully the court will uphold the ban.

UK legislation would likely impose a prison sentence for a similar offence under health and safety law, so I think Flavio probably got off lightly in that respect.

Is it "guilty" until proven innocent in the UK????

[motetarip]

Is it "guilty" until proven innocent in the UK????

I wasn't aware that Flavio's guilt was in question, merely his punishment, although I did use quotation marks to highlight 'fact' as dubious term.

Maybe we should lock him up indefinitely without trial on a nearby island..

[Ari]

Flavio will win this. There were a number of poor executions made by the FIA throughout the case. Flavio just needs to prove a couple of them and the whole thing could effectively be wound back.

This thing isn't dead. It's only beginning.

[ArrowsFA1]

The FIA has condemned the leaking of documents from Flavio Briatore's legal case against Formula 1's ruling body.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80141

Looks like things are warming up for the case on the 24 November :crazy:

[Malbec]

However the FIA has no interest in having him involved with their championship and it's their right to chose who they accept in their select club.

The FIA has its own rules and regulations including a list of punishments. I believe that to strip Flavio of his every involvement in anything F1 related isn't on the FIA's own books, hence it isn't a right they have.

That said I think Flav is on very shaky grounds with this one. He didn't even contest or turn up to the FIA hearing and Renault has sacked him on the grounds he was guilty, again something he didn't challenge.

Also he's going to the French courts, their response has always been to get the FIA to sort things out itself and won't get involved or challenge their decision.

[Fide]

FIA is a friend's club (being naive) and the sanction applied to Briatore is clearly a retaliation from Mr double moral now former FIA president........
It doesn't imply Briatore is a saint, but FIA is flexible when they want (clearly they should have had penalize RENAULT) AND with whom they want.... This is a finger selection of guilty and not guilty....

[TMorel]

I thought the FIA were happy leaking letters during the election process, so why do they seem to think it's unfair when done back?

[Saint Devote]

and decided to sue the FIA.

Can't this guy take a hint? Go away! (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/79569)

Nobody reaches a position of financial power without high self-esteem - which is defined as someone that can think for himself, not merely accept the judgement of others and determine his own deserving happiness.

Why should he "go away"? He has every right to prove whatever he can in a place where he was not given voice - a court of law.

It was the FIA kangaroo court that gave free passes to certain people and condemned others to sporting death.

It was not justice that we witnessed but a power excercising its capricious will under the misnomer of "court".

Regardless of circumstances that night in Marina Bay, Flavio deserves his case to be heard by objective versus subjective judges.

I for one would love to know what the FIA hid and has not disclosed. It is good that maybe justice will be done and air everything that may come out of a real trial.

Flavio - more power to you baby!!!

[Saint Devote]

I thought the FIA were happy leaking letters during the election process, so why do they seem to think it's unfair when done back?

What gave you the impression that the FIA stands for truth and justice?

Was it not this institution that granted Ferrari a secret technical veto??

All bullies dislike what they do being returned to them.

[Valve Bounce]

I hope that Sleazy Flav does take the FIA to court. It would be most interesting how evidence will be given of his criminal activity in race fixing.

[gloomyDAY]

Why should he "go away"? He has every right to prove whatever he can in a place where he was not given voice - a court of law.When you rig a race, lie about it, and then get caught....you should GTFO.

Flavio may have the right to take the FIA to court, but it doesn't make him right.

[ArrowsFA1]

When you rig a race, lie about it, and then get caught....you should GTFO.
Does that also apply to Nelson Piquet jnr?

[gloomyDAY]

The run-up to the trial keeps getting better and better.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80148


Does that also apply to Nelson Piquet jnr?Yes.