Renault get a 2 year suspended ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

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 "...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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.... ;)

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

According to the WMSC hearing (link):
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.

Anyone listened yet to the FIA hearing?

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

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.