Renault get a 2 year suspended ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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.

---

Precisely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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.

---

But if it doesn't exist, the end result could be to do absolutely nothing, which wouldn't be right in this case because something clearly did happen that wasn't right. There is no 'smoking gun' e-mail or written document, for example, and there was never going to be. So far we have heard no complaints about confessions being forced out of the relevant parties under duress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

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?

---

Damn! I wish you could have been on the last Jury I was on. :D

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78798

I suppose Pat is the only one I have any sympathy for.

it seems to me that he has not lied all the way through and refused to answer when it ment he couldn't tell the truth so his clear statement that it was Piquets idea holds a lot of sway with me.

In fact, the Piquets coming up with an idea like this to secure a drive (and have a blackmail chip to boot) demonstrates motive, opportunity and fits in with character of Snr.

Flav has had it coming for a long time as well and I'm glad he has gone. He was only ever in F1 for the business and ego rather than the racing. Good riddance.

Pat though has put his heart and soul into the team. He was there at the beginning and has sacrificed much. His personal dissapointment and regret must be consuming. Why, why, why didn't you just send Jnr packing with a flea in his ear when he came up with this preposterous idea Pat? WHY!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But if it doesn't exist, the end result could be to do absolutely nothing, which wouldn't be right in this case because something clearly did happen that wasn't right. There is no 'smoking gun' e-mail or written document, for example, and there was never going to be. So far we have heard no complaints about confessions being forced out of the relevant parties under duress.

---

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

---

I totally see where you're coming from, but I think in this case sufficient evidence has been presented. Have any of the parties involved actually denied it? I feel that a more dangerous precedent is to do nothing because the evidence only comes in the form of stories — which is, after all, inevitable — and then open the floodgates to other teams realising that they can fix races by means of unattributable conversations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...

---

Rudy. This case seems pretty open and shut.

Jnr says he has cheated with 2 other people.

One has admitted it was true that he cheated.

A witness has come forward and confirmed the accusation.

Telementary data backs up the deliberate crash.

There was motive for the crash.

Where is the doubt in this case. Only Flav is blowing hot air and I will bet physical money with you that his threat of taking everyone and their dog to court comes to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

But I see Symonds has admitted according to a report in Autosport and he is saying he will "eternally regret etc". I am not surprised he turned out to be weak. He looks like a weak character.
:D

---

Quite unlike your hero Sleazy Flav.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Rudy. This case seems pretty open and shut.

Jnr says he has cheated with 2 other people.

One has admitted it was true that he cheated.

A witness has come forward and confirmed the accusation.

Telementary data backs up the deliberate crash.

There was motive for the crash.

Where is the doubt in this case. Only Flav is blowing hot air and I will bet physical money with you that his threat of taking everyone and their dog to court comes to nothing.

---

the same witnesse said that it was Piquet that came up with the idea while his ´confession´ didn´t include this little insignificant detail. I think the immunity given to him should be reconsidered since it was based on false facts. Or ´maybe´ this was just the revenge of the allspitefull one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Perhaps Witness X is actually Woman D or Mistress E.... ;)

---

Deep Throat! :D