Massa and 2008 Championship query

After being World Champion for less than 10 minutes at the rain-swept 2008 Brazilian GP; the last race of that season, Sir Lewis Hamilton passed Glock to win the Championship by one point. The same amount of points that he lost the driver's championship in 2007 to Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen. Apparently, Massa was seeking to sue to have the Singapore race annulled due to the Renault crashgate which caused him a loss of opportunity to have more points which would have ensured that he won the championship that year with hindsight of course.

I am trying to work out the logic of his thinking. Crashgate had nothing to do with Mclaren. Mclaren themselves navigated all of that mess, same as everyone else. So what is the man talking about?

https://www.motorsportforums.com/sho...ood-old-Bernie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

https://www.motorsportforums.com/sho...ood-old-Berniecoreball

---

Oh here it is. This is what I am looking for. Thank you.

More info is coming out on why Massa thinks he has a case. Apparently, after the race trophy presentation at the 2008 Brazilian GP, Nelson Piquet Sr approached Charlie Whiting to inform him of the conspiracy that occurred at the Singapore GP earlier that year. Apparently, the basis of Massa's case was that the FIA and FOM should have responded within 4 days of receiving that information by stating their course of action on the matter, they claim this is according to the F1 statutes and regulations. The basis of the case seems to be that they did not act because they conspired to act against Massa's interest; allegedly.

Now, this information alone spins up a number of theories in my head.

1. Why did Nelson Piquet not contact the FIA earlier upon knowing about the conspiracy from his son but waited several weeks to do so? More importantly, why did he not contact the FIA at the start of the race but at the end when the championship outcome had been decided? Mind you, decided against his fellow countryman by the slightest of margins.

2. Could it be that Charlie Whiting smelled a rat and thought there was a scheme to overturn the championship outcome?

3. Is the FIA's lack of response an actual response to say we know what you are trying to do buddy and we are not buying it?


Unfortunately, Charlie Whiting is not with us to give us a clear idea of what was and was not said. We can imagine that Mr. Whiting [RIP] would have been faced with two separate issues to analyze, namely:-

(a) Was he confronted with a fraudulent attempt to alter the outcome of the championship?

(b) How to proceed with the information about the conspiracy of Singapore.

If he had concluded that the timing of the notification was suspicious and he thought fraud was afoot, the official course of action may well have led to a former F1 champion being found guilty of attempting to commit fraud. In this case, his lack of action may have been to avoid that outcome. You have to bear in mind that the informer's son had been an active party in bringing the conspiracy about. The credibility of the informant would have seemed quite dodgy to say the least.


Timing appears to be a very crucial factor in all actions leading to this case. Because the timing of Massa's choice to challenge took several years to materialize. They seem to conveniently attribute the basis of acting now to be on information originating from Bernie Ecclestone who happens to not recollect ever saying anything of the nature.

Of course, the natural reaction to this is to think Ecclestone is senile and has lost his sharp wit and sense of diplomacy. What is questionable is, did Massa already know of the Piquet-Whiting dialogue from his countryman Nelson Piquet Sr or Jr? It is certainly very hard to believe that the Piquets would not have informed Massa that same weekend or shortly after of the conspiracy and the fact that the FIA has been notified of it.

Like the delayed action to notify the FIA of conspiracy, the legal action was delayed and only came into action after the late Chalie Whiting had passed away. Conveniently, he is not present to argue the case for FIA in the action and thought process that transpired on that faithful day.

The Massa story gains sympathy on the back of the raw sentiments that linger over the shameful Abu Dhabi incident where it appeared clearer than ever that the outcome of the 2021 championship may have been predetermined.

The more l look at the Massa action, the more questionable it becomes to me. You may have a different opinion of course. I am just not comfortable seeing Charlie Whiiting's name and reputation run through the mud because he is not here to defend himself. That is what it is going to come down to, he failed in his duty to act.

If we go by the Jonathan Noble interview with Max Mosley a year after the 2008 season had ended, the FIA had investigated the Piquet information and were waiting for Renault to respond. It is unclear how Ecclestone could have said anything contrary to Mosley. The plot thickens. But l am still failing to see any conspiracy against Massa in all of this.

However, it is reasonable to expect the Duo {Moseley and Ecclestone} to drag their feet with the hope of averting a scandal. Even that is not a definition of a conspiracy. As it would be expected that they would thread carefully to ensure that the information given is credible. It would be very unusual for the FIA to instantly nullify a race based on the initial information before a complete investigation.

One thing that was very clearly stated by Moseley {speaking in Oct 2009} was that the outcome of the championship would not be altered regardless of the conclusion of the crashgate investigation. He quoted "Article 179B of the International Sporting Code" as the reason why the championship outcome of the 2008 season would remain unchanged.

Quote:

---

"Q. But it is not too late after 12 months to discover something that people suspected at the time?

MM: It is like, in the real world, fraud goes on forever. If you cheat the tax man normally, if you don't declare your money, it is three or six years - there is a limitation. But if you are fraudulent, it goes on forever. What we cannot do is we cannot interfere with the results of the championship, or indeed of that race, because of Article 179B of the International Sporting Code. On the 30th November the championship is finished, whatever. But of course if someone has done something they should not do, they can still get a penalty. So it is open.

---

This makes me wonder what Massa's claim is about.

If the fuelling hose incident had not happened immediately after the crash during the 2008 Singapore race, chances were Massa may have scored more than one point and would have most certainly been the champion for 2008, regardless of the crash. It would have been a matter of how many points would he have won the championship by. He only needed one point minimum but two would make it unequovical. The truth of the matter was, it was that very incident that cheated him of the title. We would not be talking about the crashgate incident of the 2008 season if Massa had not driven away with the fuel hose attached and suffered an unsafe release penalty that put him outside the points.

The outcome of the 2008 championship was partly his and Ferrari's own doing.

If we stop for a moment and consider if the crash were due to an innocent normal race accident, would Massa have any excuse to blame for his fate? After all, F1 is prone to crashes; which occur regularly. Sometimes they alter the outcome of the championship as it also did in Abu Dhabi 2021 where it made the championship available to Redbull and Verstappen. The fuel incident would still have happened and the penalty would still have been suffered by Massa. And He would still have failed to win the 2008 driver's championship.

Massa lacks mitigative proof that he had attained the full maximum points possible given the capability of his car and the best capability of his team at the Singapore race. As a consequence of the crash, his best efforts were scuppered by the crash. Obviously, he would need to show a direct connection between the crash and his car or himself which would be the basis for causation. The fact that he was leading the race before the crash does not imply he is guaranteed to finish the race still leading the race. He certainly was going to stop at least once before the end of the race regardless of the crash and it was very likely that the fuelling hose incident may happen at that pitstop.

Hence, the crash was not a determining factor in the outcome of the championship. It was merely a disruption which is typical in F1 racing. It affected everyone equally with respect to how they all finished their 2008 season. The key difference was Mclaren operated more efficiently than Ferrari, which cumulated in a sole point ahead at the end of the season.

Hence, in the scheme of things, he needs the assistance of the FIA to help him claim the 2008 championship. But for them to do so at their detriment. Makes you wonder what is going on in that Brazillian head?

What is not covered above is the question of whether the FIA was lenient to Renault. For instance, should they have removed Renault cars from the race classification? This would have the net effect that the top ten points earning positions would shift with Alonso removed as the winner of that race. In which case, the new classification including Massa would look as follows:

1 Nico Rosberg Williams Toyota
2 Lewis Hamilton McLaren Mercedes
3 Timo Glock Toyota
4 Sebastian Vettel STR Ferrari
5 Nick Heidfeld Sauber BMW
6 David Coulthard Red Bull Renault
7 Kazuki Nakajima Williams Toyota
8 Jenson Button Honda
9 Heikki Kovalainen McLaren Mercedes
10 Robert Kubica Sauber BMW
11 Sebastien Bourdais STR Ferrari
12 Felipe Massa Ferrari


As can be seen above, Massa would still not win the 2008 driver's championship. Canceling the race or the half-point options goes against the regulation as quoted by Moseley. On the matter of leniency, there is a good chance the court may consider it to be at the discretion of the FIA to determine the degree and scope of punishment to apply. In so far as the punishment demonstrates that it is adequately a clear deterrent to discourage any future repeat of this conduct.

When matters like this go to court, it becomes about facts and jurisprudence, not about the sentiments of the person who feels wronged.

Let us talk about what is at risk with this court case. The court may set aside "Article 179B of the International Sporting Code" if they can find a solid reason to do so. Such a reason would have to show proof that on the balance of probabilities, a breach of duty of care exists. This standard of proof is much lower than is needed in a criminal case where the burden of proof is to go beyond reasonable doubt.

All Massa has to do is find something wrong in the procedure followed by the FIA and FOM in reviewing, subsequently investigating, and consequential punitive action. There just needs to be enough indication of unusual conduct or decision to meet the basic standard of proof on the balance of probability.

Even so, the court may defer the decision to the FIA to reconsider their decision with the directive to take into consideration certain factors. It would then fall to the current FIA to review all the information and make a verdict within the FIA statutes and Regulations of course. But factoring in the directive from the court.

This may open up multiple possible options, the following are my speculation of the options:-

1. Remove Renault cars from the classification of the race on the grounds of benefiting from the poisoned tree principle

2. Half point awarded - This would imply they should terminate the race at the point the crash occurred. This unfortunately would not be considered a fair solution and would only inspire further litigation from other teams and drivers affected.

3. Nullify the race - This is equally problematic as they would need to be satisfied that those who innocently benefited from the crash were in some way linked to an unfair advantage. Something like showing the other teams; especially Mclaren benefited more from the crash relative to Massa before the pitstop fuel incident. The benefit gained may have to be great enough to show Massa would lose the championship before the fuel hose incident. If they are unable to do so, this may leave the FIA open to litigation from those who stand to lose from the decision to nullify the race.

4. Uphold the original decision of the 2008 FIA

While options one and four appear the easiest options for the FIA, the barn door will be open if the court chooses to not consider "Article 179B of the International Sporting Code" a deterrent from the current FIA awarding the 2008 drivers title to Massa if their finding allows them to do so. This very point would put the 2021 driver's championship at risk of being successfully challenged in court. In this scenario, there may be a very high probability of jail time for Michael Masi, if investigations exposes a fraudulent abuse of office.

It stands to reason that the court may see it necessary to prevent the FIA from hiding an unlawful act behind an FIA regulation.