"I'm innocent!" I didn't know anything about a crash! I was following the Bundesliga football at the time. The team I bet on was winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
Printable View
"I'm innocent!" I didn't know anything about a crash! I was following the Bundesliga football at the time. The team I bet on was winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
Can we not make this thread about Ron (again!)....this is about Flav and Symonds.
Anthony is way off...Renault knowingly endangered the life of a driver and others, far worse than industrial espionage. Problem is the FIA went about this all the wrong way, although you'd presume Symonds admission and Witness X's knowledge were enough to show Flavio knew about it.
Tainted goods? When has that stopped anyone before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
The odds of him returning are pretty good I would say, it all depends on his motivation. Seeing how his wife looks like, I can think of at least two reasons as to why he would not bother returning to F1.
Justice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
When in other sports you are caught cheating (using steroids for example), you are banned for 2 or for 3 years and on second time, you get banned for life.
Flavio does the same, actually he does something much worse (he endangered lives of the drivers, the marshalls and the public), gets convicted and now all the stupid FIA haters are actually cheering the decision to allow him back to F1?
I wonder how those people conduct their daily business and if they praise cheating and dishonest behaviour?
If you fools were able to look at it neutrally without your obvious hate for the FIA, you would find this decision disgusting (as anyone honest would), but no, your intellectual midgetry does not allow you to behave like that and rise above your hate.
Could anyone give me any rational reasons as to why this is a good decision?
NB! hating the FIA is not a rational reason
Garry? Have you not put the troll on your ignore list yet? I hadn't read that rubbish until you quoted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
I never put anyone on ignore list, never have and never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
But I honestly do feel for you for you having to read his nonsense due to me quoting him and apologize.
Apology accepted :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
I never used to use the ignore function but since I put people on there the forum has become a lot more enjoyable and very few facepalm moments :)
As far as the Renault crash goes, I'm not sure that was cheating. Bad taste maybe, but not cheating. It really happened way too early in the race to ensure any result except a Piquet, Jr DNF and that could have been done by calling the car in for some phantom problem. It's not much different than other sports where a coach has a player fake an injury to stop the clock without using a time out. One thing is for sure and that should be the identity of "witness X". According to the appeal, only 4 people within the team knew about this and attended the discussion when it was decided. That would be Pat, Flav, Piquet, Jr., and X. X was the main witness for the FIA. Supposedly, X was the only one out of the three that was against the idea. Alonso or Piquet, Sr.? I can see Piquet, Sr, wanting to protect his kid and his superlicense but it's also strange that Renault didn't mind Alonso leaving a bit early either.
On the Ferrari-McLaren thing, I've thought there was a rat there from day one. I do think that McLaren was set-up on that deal and I believe the puppetmaster was Di Montemezolo. It wasn't personal against McLaren, it would have been tried on any team that pushed Ferrari hard that year. For all the wounded moaning coming out of the Ferrari camp I maintained it was a set-up and the final proof would be once the FIA had smacked McLaren down hard enough, Ferrari would drop the criminal charges. The criminal charges weren't dropped in the Toyota-Ferrari deal because that was a real industrial espionage case. The way the FIA rules and the language it uses in it's rules makes them almost impossible to fight and win unless they have a change of heart due to outside pressure or you go outside of them like Flav. In addition, way back when, I said Mclaren's absolute final punishment would not become final until the Renault with McLaren plans fiasco was settled. That was done to make McLaren behave properly with no screaming, shouting, and running to outside courts while Renault got their hand slapped and wandered off virturally untouched.
Whether cheating works or not it's still cheating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7
Was it cheating? Was the running order after the crash the exact same as the finishing order? was it race fixing or race strategy?
I dislike Flavio quite strongly, but I still welcome this decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
The reason is that I do is very similar to Flavio's own main point of argument and the one the court seems to have agreed with. The decision was made in a completely arbitrary way, personally decided by Max Mosely, based not on facts and rules, but on what he felt was "right". It was decided before the meeting, a meeting of a body that has shown in the past that it operates as nothing but a bunch of puppets for the president. The FIA does have statutes, rule books and principles determining how its role as rule keeper should be executed, but this case made it clear to everyone that they were either ignored, or that they lack the appropriate due process for an organisation of FIAs type.
The punishments were, IMO, appropriate. However, the way they were decided was completely inappropriate, and should be rightly be thrown out. Re-trial would be a good solution, if that would be possible (which I doubt it is).
You mention doping bans from other sports. There is a reason that the standard is a 2 or 3 year ban the first time, and not life. Various prejudicial cases have decided that banning somebody for life from what is their livelihood is excessive for a first charge cheating. The second time around, otoh it has been accepted. Life bans have been handed out in very serious cases, and I do think that the Flavio case is one, and that the life ban is reasonable compared to other sports. As I mentioned in the thread where Flavio's initial appeal was discussed, civil courts have examined bans in other sports, sometimes saying ok, and sometimes invalidiating them, not uncommonly on procedural reasons. The difference is that other governing bodies, such as the FIS (skiing) and the UCI (cycling) have had time to develop proper processes for them to act according to in their role as both prosecutor and judge. The FIA clearly hasn't. They need to!
Flavio should be banned for life, but because he broke serious rules and endangered lives. Not because Max dislikes him.
As a summary: We praise this decision because we value the rule of law higher than revenge. Your comments make it seem like you would fit in quite well as a policeman in some kind of dictatorial state. That usually works rather well right up until it is you or your family that get summarily sentenced and executed.