Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Do you honestly think Sleazy 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
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.
Actually there is a link http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
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 :
I like to think the entire FIA is a collective tool in its current guise....Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
This clears it up...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6845194.ece
Quote:
“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
No I think it is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The idea was suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr.Quote:
Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.
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.
My bad, didn't think that one through very well, did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valve Bounce
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.... ;)